2 different speakers...........

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393084/2-different-speakers#post_3494338
You are looking at it from the wrong cause.
Oil production is a national Security issue. You and I are to young to remember the oil crisis during the late 70's. But I have read a lot about it.
When Saddam invaded Kuwait, oil jumped 40 cents a gallon in some states. That equated to a 40% increase. If we left The middle east alone and let them "sort out" thier own crap...what does that do to our own economy? Problem is, everyone that says we need to stop meddling in other countries business, forget it is now a global economy. And what happens over there, will greatly affect us back home.
So, I would argue, it is patriotic for our troops to secure and sustain nations of foreign countries if it helps keep costs down as low costs allow lower income families to get by. Our intervention allows many to go about thier daily business in this country and not having to decide to pay the gas bill or buy groceries.Fill thier gas tank and keep thier job or lose thier job and need food stamps.
The Ultra Conserative Right keeps espousing how we should rid our dependency of foreign oil. They claim it could've been done decades ago. Now all of a sudden it's a national security issue. The problem isn't the Middle East, it's OPEC. Someone sneezes in the Middle East/Saudia Arabia/Abu Daubi/pick one, the price of a barrel of oil jumps. Countries around the world allow this organization to control the oil purse strings. You could nuke that entire region, and OPEC would still find a way to control the price. It's called alternative energy solutions. It's called getting off oil dependency. Until the US does that, you're just spinning your wheels.
BTW, I spent many days sitting in gas lines in the 70's. I remember they would ration based on the last digit of your license plate. If it were even, you got gas on Monday, Wednesday, Fridays. Odd it was Tuesday, Thursday, Sunday. They allowed exceptions fro businesses that required their vehicles for business (deliveries, service, transportation, etc.) If you had a company logo or name on your vehicle, you could get gas on any day. I was a Computer Field Engineer at the time, and had to travel all over the city/state servicing clients. Our company made up these magnetic signs with our company name on them, and if anyone needed gas, they'd slap it on the side of their door and head for the gas station. Oh the good ole days...

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/393084/2-different-speakers#post_3494345
Again with misdirect and obfuscation-I didn't see the first post. We were attacked by 5th century throwbacks from Afghanistan-and they were vowing much more to come. So our military was and is fighting for national survival and every bit as important as D Day. Sadam Hussein said he's support anyone who fought the great satan-Bill Clinton and every major democrat said he had or was making chemical and biological weapons, which he used several times on his own people and Iran. So there was a danger of him giving it to Al Qaeda and the Taliban to use against us. So, I'm sick and tired of hearing that was all on Bush. So, the men and women who fought in Iraq most certainly were fighting in the national interest. But beside all that, you hate Christians so bad you're willing to overlook some very troubling things coming from a guy who spent 4 years in a radical Wahibi madras in Indonesia and who knows exactly what he's saying. This is what gets me most about liberals, just cut our military to 3rd world status and sit around waiting for the next attack. Yeah, that holocaust thing you like to wave like a badge of honor? It was caused by the very thing you endorse.
BS. Go back and read about Sadaam's planned assasination attempt on Bush 1. Dubya started that war as a vendetta. One for Sadaam making Daddy look like a fool in Kuwait in Gulf War 1, and second for him trying to get Daddy knocked off.
They never found concrete proof of WMD's, or any chemicals to make said weapons in Sadaam's possession. They did find some stuff in the northern regions of Iraq after they strung him up, and claimed that was his private stash. As far as anyone knows, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were the owners and planned on making their WMD's with Sadaam's assitance.
You're always the sensationalist and take everything to the extreme. Typical ideology of Conservative thinkers.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393084/2-different-speakers/20#post_3494377
BS. Go back and read about Sadaam's planned assasination attempt on Bush 1. Dubya started that war as a vendetta. One for Sadaam making Daddy look like a fool in Kuwait in Gulf War 1, and second for him trying to get Daddy knocked off.
They never found concrete proof of WMD's, or any chemicals to make said weapons in Sadaam's possession. They did find some stuff in the northern regions of Iraq after they strung him up, and claimed that was his private stash. As far as anyone knows, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were the owners and planned on making their WMD's with Sadaam's assitance.
You're always the sensationalist and take everything to the extreme. Typical ideology of Conservative thinkers.
Are you really this uninformed? Iraq used WMD's even on their own people. There is no doubt they had them and those found at the time of the invasion were from the old stocks. After the first gulf war the UN was to oversee the destruction of the WMD's but from day 1 Hussein gave the impression he was hiding some, thus all those UN sanctions over the years.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393084/2-different-speakers/20#post_3494397
Are you really this uninformed? Iraq used WMD's even on their own people. There is no doubt they had them and those found at the time of the invasion were from the old stocks. After the first gulf war the UN was to oversee the destruction of the WMD's but from day 1 Hussein gave the impression he was hiding some, thus all those UN sanctions over the years.
OK, if they had them, where are they now? I never heard or saw any story where we destroyed/took possession of said WMD's that were clearly known to have been mitigated by Sadaam or his regime.

 

[slice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393084/2-different-speakers/20#post_3494398
OK, if they had them, where are they now? I never heard or saw any story where we destroyed/took possession of said WMD's that were clearly known to have been mitigated by Sadaam or his regime.
It doesn't take much looking to find reports of found WMDs, components, lab remains. Of course, the media will not report any of it.
Old munitions continue to be found here and there, some even used to make IEDs.
And there is still the issue of the mystery convoys that took "something" to Syria in the months leading up to Desert Storm.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393084/2-different-speakers/20#post_3494398
OK, if they had them, where are they now? I never heard or saw any story where we destroyed/took possession of said WMD's that were clearly known to have been mitigated by Sadaam or his regime.
Before the war
http://articles.latimes.com/1997-04-10/news/mn-47233_1_chemical-weapons
So even a rock can understand Iraq absolutely, with no doubt made WMD's.
Post invasion
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
What happened to them?
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm?p=full
The FACT is Iraq was known to have WMD's because they used them during the Iran war and even on their own people in the north
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/chemical_warfare.stm
But you know the best fact that proves Iraq created WMD's and our intelligence agencies thought they still had them? Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the war. Do you seriously think Bill Clinton would have let her vote in favor of the war if he doubted the intelligence he personally received less than 2 years before the start of the war? Ted Kennedy made a stronger case for the existence of WMD's in His anti war speech on the Senate floor than Colin Powell did to the UN.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393084/2-different-speakers/20#post_3494423
Before the war
http://articles.latimes.com/1997-04-10/news/mn-47233_1_chemical-weapons
So even a rock can understand Iraq absolutely, with no doubt made WMD's.
Post invasion
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
What happened to them?
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071912-618875-syria-chemical-weapons-came-from-iraq-.htm?p=full
The FACT is Iraq was known to have WMD's because they used them during the Iran war and even on their own people in the north
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/chemical_warfare.stm
But you know the best fact that proves Iraq created WMD's and our intelligence agencies thought they still had them? Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the war. Do you seriously think Bill Clinton would have let her vote in favor of the war if he doubted the intelligence he personally received less than 2 years before the start of the war? Ted Kennedy made a stronger case for the existence of WMD's in His anti war speech on the Senate floor than Colin Powell did to the UN.
Democrats voted for that war as a reaction to 9/11. That's how it was presented to them in Congress. Bush and his coherts ran this conspiracy that Sadaam had direct ties to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, and he was harboring that group. All anyone wanted to hear is we were going after those that conspired the 9/11 tragedy. Sadaam had nothing to with that. So then the WMD conspiracy came up for the final reason to send in the first air strike.
Personally, I could care less who has nukes over in that region. Let them set them off and get rid of all those radical groups. Ooops, do that and you lose your precious oil. Interesting how we were worried about Sadaam and his access to nukes, yet we have the crazy North Korean's a few hundred miles from our borders building the things and we do nothing. Where's the air strike/war against North Korea's threat? Oh that's right. Get into another war with them, and you'll have China breathing down our necks.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393084/2-different-speakers/20#post_3494427
Democrats voted for that war as a reaction to 9/11. That's how it was presented to them in Congress. Bush and his coherts ran this conspiracy that Sadaam had direct ties to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, and he was harboring that group. All anyone wanted to hear is we were going after those that conspired the 9/11 tragedy. Sadaam had nothing to with that. So then the WMD conspiracy came up for the final reason to send in the first air strike.
Personally, I could care less who has nukes over in that region. Let them set them off and get rid of all those radical groups. Ooops, do that and you lose your precious oil. Interesting how we were worried about Sadaam and his access to nukes, yet we have the crazy North Korean's a few hundred miles from our borders building the things and we do nothing. Where's the air strike/war against North Korea's threat? Oh that's right. Get into another war with them, and you'll have China breathing down our necks.
Guess who else "knew" Iraq and Al Qeada had ties? Bill Clinton. But wait, you said Iraq didn't have WMD. Let's stay on subject.
As far as letting them nuke each other. We can drill through glass. Issue with North Korea is we go to war with them again and we go to war with China, not the best idea

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393084/2-different-speakers/20#post_3494438
Guess who else "knew" Iraq and Al Qeada had ties? Bill Clinton. But wait, you said Iraq didn't have WMD. Let's stay on subject.
As far as letting them nuke each other. We can drill through glass. Issue with North Korea is we go to war with them again and we go to war with China, not the best idea
Define WMD. I see that as an actual nuclear device capable of being launched from wherever it is located. Show me pictures of this type of physical WMD where they are clearly within the borders of Iraq.
If you're simply defining WMD as some sort of chemical warfare, probably every country in that region has had that for decades. If you're talking material that could potentially be used to make a nuke, that stuff has been floating between the Iran, Libya, Afghan, and Iraq borders for decades. Again, why target just Iraq/Sadaam when you had 2 or 3 other whackos in that region (Khomeni, Ghadafi) that were more likely to build and shoot a nuke if they had the opportunity?

 

[dragonzim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393084/2-different-speakers/20#post_3494443
Define WMD. I see that as an actual nuclear device capable of being launched from wherever it is located. Show me pictures of this type of physical WMD where they are clearly within the borders of Iraq.
According to the FBI, a WMD can be nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd

 

[darthtang aw]

Democrats voted for that war as a reaction to 9/11. 
That was one hell of a delayed reaction...considering the vote was in 2003.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393084/2-different-speakers/20#post_3494443
Define WMD. I see that as an actual nuclear device capable of being launched from wherever it is located. Show me pictures of this type of physical WMD where they are clearly within the borders of Iraq.
If you're simply defining WMD as some sort of chemical warfare, probably every country in that region has had that for decades. If you're talking material that could potentially be used to make a nuke, that stuff has been floating between the Iran, Libya, Afghan, and Iraq borders for decades. Again, why target just Iraq/Sadaam when you had 2 or 3 other whackos in that region (Khomeni, Ghadafi) that were more likely to build and shoot a nuke if they had the opportunity?
Oh, so when called on your BS you change the definition of WMD. It does, and always has included chemical and biological weapons. Once Hussein's son in law defected and spilled the beans Iraq pretty much gave up on their nuke program. One point you miss on why Iraq and not other countries is Iraq had on numerous occasions violated the cease fire agreement that ended Gulf War I. We had a legal right to re engage with Iraq as a continuation of the 91 war. Personally I think we should have pulled some cloak and dagger move on Korea and blew up their nuke facility but that opportunity is gone.

 

[darthtang aw]

Define WMD.  I see that as an actual nuclear device capable of being launched from wherever it is located.  Show me pictures of this type of physical WMD where they are clearly within the borders of Iraq.
If you're simply defining WMD as some sort of chemical warfare, probably every country in that region has had that for decades.  If you're talking material that could potentially be used to make a nuke, that stuff has been floating between the Iran, Libya, Afghan, and Iraq borders for decades. Again, why target just Iraq/Sadaam when you had 2 or 3 other whackos in that region (Khomeni, Ghadafi) that were more likely to build and shoot a nuke if they had the opportunity?
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-07/us/iraq.uranium_1_yellowcake-uranium-cameco?_s=PM:US
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM
Stories from the Liberal biased news even. Dated in 2008 and 2010.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393084/2-different-speakers#post_3494346
Christian Conservative Morals have done pretty well by us. There are two contentious issues framed by religion, Abortion and Gay Marriage. Even if the supreme court were to overturn Roe which is extremely unlikely few states would outlaw the practice. Even Christian Conservatives are coming to accept Civil Unions for gays which is as far as our government should go anyway. Marriage is a religious institution our government violates the constitution every time it meddles in it anyway. The thing is the debate is framed by the extreme jackasses on both sides. If you listen to liberals abortion is a right of passage for every girl and conservative think someone is going to abort the second coming of Christ. Those of use who can think for ourselves don't put a lot of weight on these issues cause there's a whole lot bigger problems facing the country.
On Iraq you fell for the left wing propaganda against it hook line and sinker. Consider this about Iraq. From day one of the WMD inspections following Gulf War I Hussein was doing every thing he could to give the impression he was hiding something. After a few years of inspections we had no clue how close Iraq had been to a nuke until his son in law defected and spilled the beans.
In 1995, Just a few short years after getting their clock cleaned by the US (mostly) Iraq attempted to assassinate George the first during a trip to Saudi Arabia
Iraq continuously violated UN sanctions
Repeatedly fired on US and British warplanes patrolling no fly zones.
Openly supported Palestinian terrorist
Agents of the Iraq government were known to have meetings with Al Qeada
Iraq had explored the possibility of making a terrorist style attack on the US. Vladmir Putin who was a staunch opponent of the Iraq war said his government also had intelligence about that and passed it along.
So, you have this crazy bass turd who everyone thinks still has WMD's (which he did in limited supply) who was bold enough to try to assassinate a former US president, who repeatedly violated UN sanctions, Fired on Coalition aircraft enforcing UN sanctions and openly supported terrorists. Elements of his government were known to have meetings with members of the terrorist group that attacked the USA and has made inquiries into ways of making a terrorist style attack on the USA. Given all that you don't think removing him from power was the right move?
Even in hindsight Iraq did still possess WMD's, just not in the amounts we expected. With full access to Iraq records the best we could conclude was that the meetings with Al Qeada "Didn't appear to result in any collaborative relationship". Given what we knew before we invaded I stand with people like the Clintons and a lot of other Democrats who saw the evidence and intelligence from both the Clinton and Bush administrations and decided it was the right thing to do.
Look, if you want to believe that story, it's your perogative. America is capitalism, and each and every last thing we do is based on money. Which I'm not saying is good or bad, I'm just saying it is. If we don't have financial interests, we don't mess with it. The middle east is oil, which we need to have an economy, and it just so happens that people who gain rights to that oil are very, very wealthy and want to keep it that way. It's easier to use the American people and their tax dollars to secure your oil (ergo money) than it is to pay for it yourself. If you want to believe that we went into Iraq for all those reasons, then have at it.
But remember, there are a lot of other places in the world both past and present that there have been MUCH more scary and terrible atrocities going on, and America didn't so much as shoot them a look. I wonder why.
I have always said, I respect the person who gives it to me straight. If you're a racist and straight up say to me "I don't like that guy cause he's black", I would respect you a heck of a lot more than the guy who says "I respect all people", and then makes his n***er jokes with is friends. I fell like America has become that closeted bigot who says all the right things, but really means the exact opposite.
In fact, I almost respect Romney more at this point since that hidden video came out, because hey, he laid it out there how he actually felt. I say good for him.

 

[darthtang aw]

Look, if you want to believe that story, it's your perogative.  America is capitalism, and each and every last thing we do is based on money.  Which I'm not saying is good or bad, I'm just saying it is.  If we don't have financial interests, we don't mess with it.  The middle east is oil, which we need to have an economy, and it just so happens that people who gain rights to that oil are very, very wealthy and want to keep it that way.  It's easier to use the American people and their tax dollars to secure your oil (ergo money) than it is to pay for it yourself.  If you want to believe that we went into Iraq for all those reasons, then have at it.
Sad to say,but your belief is most likely wrong based off the evidence. Like I stated, it was and always will be, about National Security, Oil supply is a larger national security threat than Iran's nuclear Program. We didn't recieve squat when it come to oil fields or oil revenue from Iraq, However, we did increase Iraq oil Production. As long as Hussien was in charge, Iraq would forever be under sanctions and the oil supply would be choked out of the region. This causing industrialized nations (ourselves being first and foremost) to make some tough monetary, economical, and environmental decisions.
One year before we started talking about invading Iraq, Iraq was pumping 1.9 million barrels of oil a day. Now they are pumping 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. How much higher would fuel be without that output? In five more years, Iraq will be pumping a monstrous 12 million barrels a day. 90% of which are done by non american companies. So it wasn't for US to get money. But in the long run, the citizens of this nation we live in will see the benefits of an Iraq not ruled by Hussien without ever knowing it. 12 million barrels a day will do a lot to keep cost down. It also keeps our politicians from actually choosing to drill or be "green" Because, you can bet your ass, even the most hippie politician will be saying drill baby drill if the middle east completely erupts and oil production is brought to a screeching halt.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393084/2-different-speakers/20#post_3494472
Sad to say,but your belief is most likely wrong based off the evidence. Like I stated, it was and always will be, about National Security, Oil supply is a larger national security threat than Iran's nuclear Program. We didn't recieve squat when it come to oil fields or oil revenue from Iraq, However, we did increase Iraq oil Production. As long as Hussien was in charge, Iraq would forever be under sanctions and the oil supply would be choked out of the region. This causing industrialized nations (ourselves being first and foremost) to make some tough monetary, economical, and environmental decisions.
One year before we started talking about invading Iraq, Iraq was pumping 1.9 million barrels of oil a day. Now they are pumping 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. How much higher would fuel be without that output? In five more years, Iraq will be pumping a monstrous 12 million barrels a day. 90% of which are done by non american companies. So it wasn't for US to get money. But in the long run, the citizens of this nation we live in will see the benefits of an Iraq not ruled by Hussien without ever knowing it. 12 million barrels a day will do a lot to keep cost down. It also keeps our politicians from actually choosing to drill or be "green" Because, you can bet your ass, even the most hippie politician will be saying drill baby drill if the middle east completely erupts and oil production is brought to a screeching halt.
Again, it's OPEC controlling the cost, not where it comes from. How about we go attack Venezuela from their dictator despot that claims they have legal elections, but mysteriously wins every election? Citizens there pay what, 12 cents/gallon for gas?

 

[darthtang aw]

Again, it's OPEC controlling the cost, not where it comes from.  How about we go attack Venezuela from their dictator despot that claims they have legal elections, but mysteriously wins every election?  Citizens there pay what, 12 cents/gallon for gas?
While Opec may hold the most reserves in the world they only hold about 45% of the worlds production as a collective. Thus their influence and control is not what it used to be and has diminished. Futures trading and speculation dictate much of the cost now...and anytime there is "fire" or supply interruptions in the middle east the speculators cause the price increase.
With Iran posturing more and more and sanctions restricting them more and more. The worlds Oil supply will need Iraq to continue increasing it's output. And as Iraq increases it's production, it will soon surpass the Great Saudi Arabi and thier production. Hopefully, the Iraqi Nation will not forget who it was that set them up on this path.

 

[darthtang aw]

Again, it's OPEC controlling the cost, not where it comes from.  How about we go attack Venezuela from their dictator despot that claims they have legal elections, but mysteriously wins every election?  Citizens there pay what, 12 cents/gallon for gas?
Oh, and last I checked, Venezuala doesn't have incidents in thier region that cause supply issue on the global stage. Thus they are not a national security risk.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393084/2-different-speakers/20#post_3494466
Look, if you want to believe that story, it's your perogative. America is capitalism, and each and every last thing we do is based on money. Which I'm not saying is good or bad, I'm just saying it is. If we don't have financial interests, we don't mess with it. The middle east is oil, which we need to have an economy, and it just so happens that people who gain rights to that oil are very, very wealthy and want to keep it that way. It's easier to use the American people and their tax dollars to secure your oil (ergo money) than it is to pay for it yourself. If you want to believe that we went into Iraq for all those reasons, then have at it.
But remember, there are a lot of other places in the world both past and present that there have been MUCH more scary and terrible atrocities going on, and America didn't so much as shoot them a look. I wonder why.
I have always said, I respect the person who gives it to me straight. If you're a racist and straight up say to me "I don't like that guy cause he's black", I would respect you a heck of a lot more than the guy who says "I respect all people", and then makes his n***er jokes with is friends. I fell like America has become that closeted bigot who says all the right things, but really means the exact opposite.
In fact, I almost respect Romney more at this point since that hidden video came out, because hey, he laid it out there how he actually felt. I say good for him.
Keep in mind we, under international law, had the legal right to resume military action against Iraq because it had violated the terms of the cease fire. Those other countries with bad actors we have no such right. As far as oil goes if there were no oil in the middle east there would be no reason for us to have ever been there in the first place BUT. Because we were there you have the radical elements doing things like fly jets into buildings so while oil might be at the root cause of all of this it had nothing to do with why we invaded Iraq. Had Hussein been open and admitted he destroyed most of his stockpiles after 1991 I have no doubt he'd still be in power.
Let's talk about racism a moments. I voted against 0bama because (and this is from memory so I'll miss some) He supported an all out ban on handguns and Semiauto weapons of any kind AND THEN GOT CAUGHT LYING ABOUT IT. In the state legislature he voted against a bill that would have prohibited good time being awarded to convicted child molesters. He voted against a bill that would have allowed prosecution of kid as young as 16 as adults if they were charged with a violent crime in association with gang activity. In the US Senate he voted against a law that would make it a federal crime for an unrelated adult to take a minor girl across state lines for an abortion if it was to avoid a state's parental notification laws.
Most people I know who voted against him could name specific reasons for voting against him as well. What I would like to know is what in this radical's past did you on the left decide made him a reasonably qualified candidate for president? My personal opinion is that for every person who voted against him just because he's black 10 voted for him for the very same reason.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393084/2-different-speakers/20#post_3494478
Again, it's OPEC controlling the cost, not where it comes from. How about we go attack Venezuela from their dictator despot that claims they have legal elections, but mysteriously wins every election? Citizens there pay what, 12 cents/gallon for gas?
What has Venezuela done to warrant being attacked?