...And they said it was not for O-I-L!!

[PsychoSy]

The Timeline Of Oil & Violence

Part One - AFGHANISTAN

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm

Part Two - IRAQ

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline-Iraq_040903c.htm

While you folks slog thru these two, I'll prepare to get tarred and feathered for posting them. :angel:

[Riptide]

I hate to keep pointing this out, and not to sound like a broken record, but there were reasons to believe he had WMD: there were items unaccounted for. He never documented what happened to those items. He was never fully cooperative.

I particularly find it stupid how the US always gets 100% of the blame for the failure of the uprising during the first war when as a matter of fact we came under pressure from the beloved UN and our other "allies" at the time to capitulate and agree to the cease-fire with Saddam (to avoid further bloodshed ofcourse). This wasn't entirely our fault. Yet, we always seem to get lambasted for it. While we share some of the blame there, IMO, we don't deserve all of it yet that is what we seem to get while everyone else gets off without nary a snort or grunt in their general direction.

[netviper13]

Halliburton got pwned today too; wonder if Cheney's blood pressure monitor went off? :D

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/30/sprj.nitop.halliburton.ap/index.html

[1stFlight]

Originally posted by Riptide
I hate to keep pointing this out, and not to sound like a broken record, but there were reasons to believe he had WMD: there were items unaccounted for. He never documented what happened to those items. He was never fully cooperative.

I particularly find it stupid how the US always gets 100% of the blame for the failure of the uprising during the first war when as a matter of fact we came under pressure from the beloved UN and our other "allies" at the time to capitulate and agree to the cease-fire with Saddam (to avoid further bloodshed ofcourse). This was entirely our fault. Yet, we always seem to get lambasted for it. While we share some of the blame there, IMO, we don't deserve all of it yet that is what we seem to get while everyone else gets off without nary a snort or grunt in their general direction.

You sound like a broken record, given that we'd kicked the door open for the UN to account for those weapons, there was no reason to go to war without actual proof of violations rather than assumptions and "secret" evidence.

I love that, secret evidence for a public war. :rolleyes2

[Riptide]

I will keep sounding like a broken record and pointing that out as long as I keep hearing garbage about how there were no reasons to believe he had WMD. Their existence was not an assumption.

[2fast4u]

i find interesting how some people take assumptions they would like to believe as facts :rolleyes:

[1stFlight]

Originally posted by Riptide
I will keep sounding like a broken record and pointing that out as long as I keep hearing garbage about how there were no reasons to believe he had WMD. Their existence was not an assumption.

Given that there was no hard evidence, that qualifies as an assumption. Right now the only facts we have are a lot of dead soldiers.

Personally, I'd have rather waited for evidence.

Of course there was massive amounts of oil to be considered. I'm sure that didn't play any factor at all....

[Riptide]

No, the existence of those weapons (at least the items that were unaccounted for anyway) is not an assumption. As I have stated before, their ultimate fate can be called into question but not their very existence.

[1stFlight]

Originally posted by Riptide
No, the existence of those weapons (at least the items that were unaccounted for anyway) is not an assumption. As I have stated before, their ultimate fate can be called into question but not their very existence.

Then we should have let the UN verify their existence for us. Unless WMD's where never the concern to being with...

Now we have this to concern ourselves with...

http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/03dec/uf006271.gif

Maybe BushCo, and war supporters should have thought a little harder before letting all that feel good testosterone flood their veins...

[Riptide]

I think you meant to say we should've let the UN determine their ultimate fate for us, which I disagree with as well. If we had kept on doing it their way it would've been another 10 years and 17 more resolutions.

I don't deny that it's certainly possible that Saddam destroyed those items that were unaccounted for. The problem is, assuming he did destroy them he went about it in such a way that it obviously wasn't nearly as well documented as it should've been. He brought this problem on himself.

[1stFlight]

Originally posted by Riptide
I think you meant to say we should've let the UN determine their ultimate fate for us, which I disagree with as well. If we had kept on doing it their way it would've been another 10 years and 17 more resolutions.

I don't deny that it's certainly possible that Saddam destroyed those items that were unaccounted for. The problem is, assuming he did destroy them he went about it in such a way that it obviously wasn't nearly as well documented as it should've been. He brought this problem on himself.

Since when are we the world's policeman?

[UDawg]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
Since when are we the world's policeman?

Since Vietnam, Haiti, Kuwait, Somalia & Kosovo.

[legion88]

Originally posted by Riptide
I will keep sounding like a broken record and pointing that out as long as I keep hearing garbage about how there were no reasons to believe he had WMD. Their existence was not an assumption.


Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assumption

The "existence" of WMD in Iraq was an assumption. I take that back. Actually, it is more than an assumption. It was a lie until further notice.

It is known that WMDs were in Iraq during the 1980s. This was known even before Hussein allowed the use of such weapons on a village that aligned itself with Iran (i.e. he used it against a group of traitors). When these weapons were last used in 1987 or 1988 (don't remember the exact year), their existence was no longer in doubt, if there were any doubt at all.

Of course, these facts are only applicable for the 1980s.

What deceivers like to do is take facts from the past and transfer them to the present as if these facts are still current. After all, if you use WMDs, then it stands to reason that you could also deplete your inventory of such weapons.

Would it make sense to believe that the Redskins are Superbowl champs because they won three of them under coach Joe Gibbs back in the 80s and early 90s?

What the deceivers should have done (both on moral and ethical grounds) is to present a case showing that the facts of the 1980s are still applicable today. That is, it was required from them to present their case that the facts are still current.

They never even bothered to try, because they know they didn't need to. They already know that people will buy into any story they can spin because it is so easy to make make historical events sound as if it was still current events and at the same time take the events out of historical context. Most importantly, deceivers know that stupid people need someone to hate who can be targeted and beaten. Saddam Hussein and his party fills that need.

Al-Q is a group of evil people that you would think would fill that need but because of the nature of this group, it doesn't actually fill the need that stupid people in this country require. Al-Q is more like a disease that will forever be here on this planet. You can fight the disease but you know you can never get rid of it. The disease will always be there, even if it goes under a different name in the future.

Saddam and his party can be 'removed', so there is actually an achievable goal with Saddam.

[Riptide]

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/special/2003/blair_iraq/

" Finally in December 1998 when he had begun to obstruct and harass the UN inspectors, they withdrew. When they left they said there were still large amounts of WMD unaccounted for. "

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/5/204739.shtml

" The top U.N. Iraq weapons inspector Thursday cautioned the Security Council against jumping to conclusions just because weapons of mass destruction were unaccounted for by the regime of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and have yet to be found. "

Their existence can't be called into question. The term "unaccounted for" means those items were known to have existed. He did not properly document what happened to them. To go a step further as you have above and call it a lie means you know for a fact that they did not exist or have actually been destroyed. How do you know that for a fact?

Another link(s) to check into if you'd like:
http://www.miscellaneousetc.com/ac/000325.html
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/009954.php#009954

To be crystal clear: I am not saying that I know for a fact that the items unaccounted for were still there. He may very well have had them destroyed or shipped them off somewhere else. Or hidden them. The point is, we don't know what happened to them and we sure shouldn't just take his word for it. He brought this on himself.

And even if it were true that some of these items unaccounted for were from the 80's, so what? Unaccounted for means just that, it has nothing to do whether it's been ten more years or not. If they were never accounted for... then they were never accounted for.

"Most importantly, deceivers know that stupid people need someone to hate who can be targeted and beaten."

So tell me why we shouldn't hate Saddam? After all, he was a filthy swine. Most ruthless dictators do deserve hate, absolutely. That is, unless you believe his crimes are all a sham.

I could be misunderstanding you but to me it looks like you're saying it should've been up to bush and the rest of the coalition to prove that those WMD still existed and were in his control before we did anything about the situation. I don't agree with that approach here at all. The onus was on Saddam to prove what had happened to those items. After all, he was the one in control of them and responsible for them. The onus was on him, and that's exactly where it should've been. He wasn't cooperative, and if he did dispose of those items he was a complete moron about how he did it.

[UDawg]

(i.e. he used it against a group of traitors)

Yeah so gas those bastids. Don't come on here and call the REGULARS here deceivers, liars and imoral. What a dork you are.

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by UDawg
Vietnam

personally i would categorize vietnam more as an example gang warfare between the usa and the ussr rather than a police action.

[bigC]

it's always been about oil. an oil-garchy exists in the world, and the US has the ability to gather as much resources as it can by extending its Empire across the world.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by bigC
it's always been about oil. an oil-garchy exists in the world, and the US has the ability to gather as much resources as it can by extending its Empire across the world.

The oil argument is childish. It has also been disproven.

[bigC]

Originally posted by UDawg
The oil argument is childish. It has also been disproven. if you say so. you may even believe that.

but, there is so much evidence to the contrary that oil is of great importance that to dismiss it totally is foolish. sure, the fight against terrorism was probably reason 1 for invading Afghanistan but reason 1A was oil, and control of the flow of it (ie, by controlling the pipeline and its construction).

but, there are other ways to get at the oil, rather than invading weak nations. in Georgia, the US denounced recent elections there, supported the opposition, and eventually their prez, Shevardnadze, was forced to resign. why? because he was siding with Russian firms in the creation of a new pipeline, not American, which will eventually stretch from central asia, through Georgia, to Turkey. the spoils of war.

[bknblk]

Originally posted by bigC
if you say so. you may even believe that.

but, there is so much evidence to the contrary that oil is of great importance that to dismiss it totally is foolish. sure, the fight against terrorism was probably reason 1 for invading Afghanistan but reason 1A was oil, and control of the flow of it (ie, by controlling the pipeline and its construction).

but, there are other ways to get at the oil, rather than invading weak nations. in Georgia, the US denounced recent elections there, supported the opposition, and eventually their prez, Shevardnadze, was forced to resign. why? because he was siding with Russian firms in the creation of a new pipeline, not American, which will eventually stretch from central asia, through Georgia, to Turkey. the spoils of war.


Flibbled - Totally uncalled for!

[UDawg]

Originally posted by bknblk
Flibbled - Totally uncalled for!!

OMG I ALMOST FELL OUT OF MY CHAIR! Please don't hold back how you really feel. LMAO BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!1


:clap: :jumping: owned: :rofl :rofl:lol2: :lol2:

[1stFlight]

Originally posted by UDawg
The oil argument is childish. It has also been disproven.

Disproven only in the neocon propaganda machine... for everyone else, it's too realistic for words.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3333995.stm

[UDawg]

LOL You use the oil embargo from 30 years ago to "try" to prove a point. LMAO!!!! WEAK! What does that have to do with today? Let me answer it for you. NOTHING!!! It was also a threat assement of what the US "MIGHT" do. LOL

The pice of oil hasn't come down that much. Halliburton has been fired. Oh BTW did you know Halliburton has been doing these types of contract for the last 30 years? Yet they get this contract and the socialist cry foul. LOL!!! bunch of babies.

nice try socialist! Call me a neocon, fine. I call a spade a spade and up the bet. ;)

[1stFlight]

Originally posted by UDawg
LOL You use the oil embargo from 30 years ago to "try" to prove a point. LMAO!!!! WEAK! What does that have to do with today? Let me answer it for you. NOTHING!!! It was also a threat assement of what the US "MIGHT" do. LOL

The pice of oil hasn't come down that much. Halliburton has been fired. Oh BTW did you know Halliburton has been doing these types of contract for the last 30 years? Yet they get this contract and the socialist cry foul. LOL!!! bunch of babies.

nice try socialist! Call me a neocon, fine. I call a spade a spade and up the bet. ;)

UDawg, you'd call anything Bush told you to a spade :)

As for the evidence. Hey, you'd already biased, I'll let others decide from themselves...

Btw, calling you a neocon is accurate, calling me a socialist isn't ...nice try, at least do try to be correct on occasion.

[UDawg]

I am not a hard liner and yes you are a socialist. You want central control of government. You don't believe in states rights and you want government to control more and more of the private industry. You are in fact a socialist.

As for the evidence. Hey, you'd already biased, I'll let others decide from themselves...

LOL and you are not. LMAO I am at least comfortable in my skin. You have to fool your self that you are. LOL!

UDawg, you'd call anything Bush told you to a spade

Since when do I follow Bush blindly? LOL Just because I agree with him on the war on terror doesn't mean I follow him blindly. How about you pulling your head out of Noam's arss and think for your self. LOL what a trud.