| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/26/2003 10:35:08 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by welcher:
No, my fears are legitimate possible outcomes of a war, every bit as much as your fears are legitimate possible outcomes of no war. |
welcher, you forgot one possible outcome, which would be disastrous to the world economy and stability.
What happens if the US gets dragged into a street war like in Mogadishu? If the civilian death toll starts rising pressure from the world will increase exponentially. Sooner or later the US would have to cut its losses and run. What I'm trying to say is WHAT HAPPENS IF THE US LOSES?
|
|
|
|
03/26/2003 12:19:01 PM · #77 |
I didn't forget it. I was just thinking about outcomes that are remotely likely. Frankly, if we want to win this war, we will. There are no two ways about it. If we had wanted to, we could have avenged Mogadishu on an epic scale, and destroyed that warlord. We didn't want to.
Achiral's ridiculous restrictions on my speculation aside, the fears and concerns I listed are possibilities that are simply out of America's control, and could prove disasterous if they came to pass. |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 12:22:05 PM · #78 |
i think it's safe to say that GW isn't the sharpest tack ever elected, but at the same time there's almost no argument that he was able to put together one of the best cabinets ever assembled
are we to believe that these great minds were "duped", as the rest of us supposedly were, into supporting a war for oil (or for that matter, for ANY reason - other than it was in the best interest of the future of -not only the USA - but of the PLANET)
do you believe that these men and women would put, say, personal wealth, ahead of what's "right"??
and wouldn't the democrats look forward to greater wealth in the US, so that they can create more public programs?
|
|
|
|
03/26/2003 12:25:33 PM · #79 |
Ignoring the "war for oil" sentiment, which is largely misrepresented by both sides as a greed motive, when actually it is an "ability to counter OPEC" motive, history is full of people that thought they were doing the right thing, but weren't.
The Administration doesn't have to be "duped" to be wrong. They can be perfectly plugged in, and making honest, genuine decisions they think are best, and still be doing the wrong thing. |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 12:26:28 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by spiderman:
do you believe that these men and women would put, say, personal wealth, ahead of what's "right"?? |
Haliburton, the company that Dick Cheney ran, and is still paying him, just won the contract for rebuilding the Basra oil fields. |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 12:31:49 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by spiderman:
do you believe that these men and women would put, say, personal wealth, ahead of what's "right"??
and wouldn't the democrats look forward to greater wealth in the US, so that they can create more public programs? |
Yes I would believe they put personal wealth ahead of the good of the planet and all its citizens.
The people with that kind of money put it in the Bahamas and other places so they don't have to pay taxes -- those "public programs" (like giving a lunch to 12 million hungry kids) are largely funded by ordinary, wage-earning taxpayers, not by the rich. And, those kids mightn't be hungry if their folks could get a job at a minimum wage which kept them above the poverty line (you try raising a kid on $5.75/hour!)...but I guess Dick Cheney really NEEDS that million dollars in "deferred" (tax-avoiding) compensation he's getting from Haliburton this year. I think it would buy a lot of school lunches...
Message edited by author 2003-03-26 12:33:49. |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 12:49:48 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by welcher:
I didn't forget it. I was just thinking about outcomes that are remotely likely. Frankly, if we want to win this war, we will. There are no two ways about it. If we had wanted to, we could have avenged Mogadishu on an epic scale, and destroyed that warlord. We didn't want to. |
I agree that there is absolutely no way that the US could lose a conventional war against Iraq, but in a street war the US's air dominance, smart missiles, tanks and artillery becomes a handicap instead of an advantage. The excellent news coverage will mean that every civilian death will be seen by the whole world, almost instantaneously. How do you think the world will react to being bombarded with images of dead children?
Ask any military strategist (which I``m definitely not) and they'll tell you that in such a conflict, the defending force has a huge advantage. I'm not suggesting that the Iraqis could defeat the US, but heavy troop losses and civilian casualties could lead to a major public outcry. If the US was forced to withdraw before it could succeed in topling Saddam, it would in effect not have succeeded in it's main objective, ie it will have lost the war.
If you think Mogadishu was bad, wait and see what Baghdad will be like. You'll have children, with explosives strapped to their bodies attacking US troops, people who are refugees one day and suicide bombers the next, soldiers out of uniform, all attacking in close quarters.
The moment the US troops start engaging the enemy in Baghdad they will have lost the war.
Remember that many of these people hate America more than Saddam. Many of them still remember what happened the last time the US promised to help them. It is estimated that Saddam killed 60 000 people after the first gulf war, when the US left them high and dry. |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 12:52:47 PM · #83 |
Martus,
I agree with your post. I covered it under "increased hatred of US in middle east." ;)
I think our military guys are too smart, and have done too much planning, to get sucked into a conflict like that. On the other hand, we have screwed up before, and we may again.
Again, though, this is all speculation, and we know that speculation about possible outcomes is NOT allowed when forming an opinion. |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 01:03:06 PM · #84 |
| Welcher, I hope you're right. I guess these guys know what they are doing. Then again, I guess the Germans also thought they knew what they were doing when the first troops rolled into Stalingrad.... |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 01:13:58 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by spiderman:
do you believe that these men and women would put, say, personal wealth, ahead of what's "right"?? |
Haliburton, the company that Dick Cheney ran, and is still paying him, just won the contract for rebuilding the Basra oil fields. |
ooo big freakin deal. the money he is getting paid is severance for leaving haliburton to become vice president. haliburton happens to be one of the best companies at doing what it does in the world. just because you have a problem with oil issues doesn't mean you can run around insuating a conflict of interest problem. there is nothing actually wrong with what has happened. haliburton is the best at doing what needs to be done. so we should skip them because the vice president USED to be in control there? get a life
|
|
|
|
03/26/2003 01:18:27 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by welcher:
Martus,
I agree with your post. I covered it under "increased hatred of US in middle east." ;)
I think our military guys are too smart, and have done too much planning, to get sucked into a conflict like that. On the other hand, we have screwed up before, and we may again.
Again, though, this is all speculation, and we know that speculation about possible outcomes is NOT allowed when forming an opinion. |
haha you are so bitter. get over it. i'm sorry your feelings are hurt and you can't get that out of your mind. you still haven't presented anything more than speculation to support your stance. speculation ONLY isnt a valid reason to not go to war. you will never convince anyone with pure speculation, and most of the time you run the risk of making yourself look stupid after the things you harp on so much turn out to be pure fiction
|
|
|
|
03/26/2003 01:36:37 PM · #87 |
Our military is indeed too smart to be sucked in... However, they were pushed into this conflict by two draft dodgers (President Bush and Vice President Cheney) with huge interests in the oil industry. The Commander in Chief started this war, for reasons of his own. Prior to the war, all of the people of the current administration with actual military background and know how urged that we NOT go to war. But once they are sent, they do their job, no questions asked.
As per the comments from the Hollywood crowd, they were just exercising what the military has long been protecting. The Freedom to express themselves. Apparently that right is only suppose to be reserved for CNN cheerleaders and their staff of retired generals?
Originally posted by welcher:
Martus,
I agree with your post. I covered it under "increased hatred of US in middle east." ;)
I think our military guys are too smart, and have done too much planning, to get sucked into a conflict like that. On the other hand, we have screwed up before, and we may again.
Again, though, this is all speculation, and we know that speculation about possible outcomes is NOT allowed when forming an opinion. |
|
|
|
|
03/26/2003 01:39:34 PM · #88 |
Hilarious. I've proven time and time again that you are every bit as guilty of speculation as anyone else, and you come back with more insults. Which seems to be your primary method of debate. "Get a life". "You sound like a high school kid."
Riiiiiggghhhtt. |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 01:48:32 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by achiral:
haha you are so bitter. get over it. i'm sorry your feelings are hurt and you can't get that out of your mind. you still haven't presented anything more than speculation to support your stance. speculation ONLY isnt a valid reason to not go to war. you will never convince anyone with pure speculation, and most of the time you run the risk of making yourself look stupid after the things you harp on so much turn out to be pure fiction |
Speculation? I thought that was the reason the war was started... There is no proof that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction (although there is ample evidence that the USA does have them). There is also no evidence that Iraq helped Osama Bin Laden (although there is ample evidence that the USA did in the 1980s).
Does Iraq have WMD? Maybe they do, but it's speculation, not fact. Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? Extremely doubtful. It's not something Saddam would have tried to hide from the world... He would have bragged about it. But even if he did, all we have is speculation.
It's most interesting when you said "speculation ONLY isnt a valid reason to not go to war." I always thought that a country needed a proven reason TO go to war... Not to NOT go to war... With this kind of thinking, we have no proof that Canada isn't hiding WMD either... CHARGE!!!
|
|
|
|
03/26/2003 01:48:37 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by spiderman:
do you believe that these men and women would put, say, personal wealth, ahead of what's "right"?? |
Haliburton, the company that Dick Cheney ran, and is still paying him, just won the contract for rebuilding the Basra oil fields. |
do you have any non-circumstantial proof that Halliburton didn't win the contract legitimately??? or did you just assume that since Mr. Cheney was being paid his legally due severence pay, they got the contract automatically?
i've worked in the oil business for many, many years and i have had many dealings with Halliburton. in my oil business related opinion, Halliburton IS the best company for the job.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2003 02:23:53 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by welcher:
Hilarious. I've proven time and time again that you are every bit as guilty of speculation as anyone else, and you come back with more insults. Which seems to be your primary method of debate. "Get a life". "You sound like a high school kid."
Riiiiiggghhhtt. |
okay how about "you sound canadian", which i assure you is not a compliment
|
|
|
|
03/26/2003 02:26:31 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by sher9204:
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by spiderman:
do you believe that these men and women would put, say, personal wealth, ahead of what's "right"?? |
Haliburton, the company that Dick Cheney ran, and is still paying him, just won the contract for rebuilding the Basra oil fields. |
do you have any non-circumstantial proof that Halliburton didn't win the contract legitimately??? or did you just assume that since Mr. Cheney was being paid his legally due severence pay, they got the contract automatically?
i've worked in the oil business for many, many years and i have had many dealings with Halliburton. in my oil business related opinion, Halliburton IS the best company for the job. |
Whether or not they won the contract legitimately is irrelevant...I'm sure they are the best company for the job, but can't you see the shocking conflict of interest in having members of the Bush administration (including Bush's own oil intersts) standing to profit from action in Iraq? The oil argument is dismissed by many pro-war opinions despite this deeply troubling truth. Seems to me to be an excellent way to make a profit...use public funds to wage a war which will help your bottom line privately. It's so glaringly obvious to anyone with a willingness to question the motives of public officials.
Bush and Cheney are old school oil executives...that's not anything new. Their administration is filled with highly respected, highly educated people who undoubtedly feel that the best way to affect things is to work from the inside, and are professional politicians and diplomats. It's not a matter of supporting the president fully or getting out...there's no doubt that a person like Condolezza Rice, a very, very intelligent and well-respected person, is willing to sacrifice her personal opinions on this matter to further her longer-term, noble political goals such as getting a black woman in a position of power (maybe even president one day). I'm sure there is a lot of lip-biting around the White House these days...
James. |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 02:37:04 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by achiral:
haha you are so bitter. get over it. i'm sorry your feelings are hurt and you can't get that out of your mind. you still haven't presented anything more than speculation to support your stance. speculation ONLY isnt a valid reason to not go to war. you will never convince anyone with pure speculation, and most of the time you run the risk of making yourself look stupid after the things you harp on so much turn out to be pure fiction |
Speculation? I thought that was the reason the war was started... There is no proof that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction (although there is ample evidence that the USA does have them). There is also no evidence that Iraq helped Osama Bin Laden (although there is ample evidence that the USA did in the 1980s).
Does Iraq have WMD? Maybe they do, but it's speculation, not fact. Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? Extremely doubtful. It's not something Saddam would have tried to hide from the world... He would have bragged about it. But even if he did, all we have is speculation.
It's most interesting when you said "speculation ONLY isnt a valid reason to not go to war." I always thought that a country needed a proven reason TO go to war... Not to NOT go to war... With this kind of thinking, we have no proof that Canada isn't hiding WMD either... CHARGE!!! |
there is no speculation that Iraq does not want to fully disclose its programs. the UN knows that hussein after all these years still hasn't been upfront about his weapons programs and won't even provide evidence of destruction of such weapons, which would vindicate him to some extent. there is no speculation there. he has disobeyed the UN for 12 years, and the latest snubs are just a continuation of old tactics. if he didn't have any weapons, why won't he account for the missings weapons? it wouldn't take 12 years to disarm him if he had just gone along with the treaty he signed at the end of the first gulf war. how is that speculation. i never claimed he had a connection to al qaeda although it wouldn't surprise me in the least. i do know that he was sending 10s of thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers in israel. that is terrorism. that is a legitimate connection. that is the whole reason we want bin laden. he funds all of al qaeda's activities. saddam has done the same in the past with suicide bombers
|
|
|
|
03/26/2003 02:37:29 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by welcher:
Hilarious. I've proven time and time again that you are every bit as guilty of speculation as anyone else, and you come back with more insults. Which seems to be your primary method of debate. "Get a life". "You sound like a high school kid."
Riiiiiggghhhtt. |
okay how about "you sound canadian", which i assure you is not a compliment |
And I can tell you for a fact that 'you sound American' has NEVER been a compliment in Canada... |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 02:38:17 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by sher9204:
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by spiderman:
do you believe that these men and women would put, say, personal wealth, ahead of what's "right"?? |
Haliburton, the company that Dick Cheney ran, and is still paying him, just won the contract for rebuilding the Basra oil fields. |
do you have any non-circumstantial proof that Halliburton didn't win the contract legitimately??? or did you just assume that since Mr. Cheney was being paid his legally due severence pay, they got the contract automatically?
i've worked in the oil business for many, many years and i have had many dealings with Halliburton. in my oil business related opinion, Halliburton IS the best company for the job. |
Whether or not they won the contract legitimately is irrelevant...I'm sure they are the best company for the job, but can't you see the shocking conflict of interest in having members of the Bush administration (including Bush's own oil intersts) standing to profit from action in Iraq? The oil argument is dismissed by many pro-war opinions despite this deeply troubling truth. Seems to me to be an excellent way to make a profit...use public funds to wage a war which will help your bottom line privately. It's so glaringly obvious to anyone with a willingness to question the motives of public officials.
Bush and Cheney are old school oil executives...that's not anything new. Their administration is filled with highly respected, highly educated people who undoubtedly feel that the best way to affect things is to work from the inside, and are professional politicians and diplomats. It's not a matter of supporting the president fully or getting out...there's no doubt that a person like Condolezza Rice, a very, very intelligent and well-respected person, is willing to sacrifice her personal opinions on this matter to further her longer-term, noble political goals such as getting a black woman in a position of power (maybe even president one day). I'm sure there is a lot of lip-biting around the White House these days...
James. |
explain how they will make money off the new contracts
|
|
|
|
03/26/2003 02:41:16 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by welcher:
Hilarious. I've proven time and time again that you are every bit as guilty of speculation as anyone else, and you come back with more insults. Which seems to be your primary method of debate. "Get a life". "You sound like a high school kid."
Riiiiiggghhhtt. |
okay how about "you sound canadian", which i assure you is not a compliment |
And I can tell you for a fact that 'you sound American' has NEVER been a compliment in Canada... |
like anyone in amercia cares. you guys were forgotten about by the world a long time ago
|
|
|
|
03/26/2003 02:55:05 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by sher9204:
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by spiderman:
do you believe that these men and women would put, say, personal wealth, ahead of what's "right"?? |
Haliburton, the company that Dick Cheney ran, and is still paying him, just won the contract for rebuilding the Basra oil fields. |
do you have any non-circumstantial proof that Halliburton didn't win the contract legitimately??? or did you just assume that since Mr. Cheney was being paid his legally due severence pay, they got the contract automatically?
i've worked in the oil business for many, many years and i have had many dealings with Halliburton. in my oil business related opinion, Halliburton IS the best company for the job. |
Whether or not they won the contract legitimately is irrelevant...I'm sure they are the best company for the job, but can't you see the shocking conflict of interest in having members of the Bush administration (including Bush's own oil intersts) standing to profit from action in Iraq? The oil argument is dismissed by many pro-war opinions despite this deeply troubling truth. Seems to me to be an excellent way to make a profit...use public funds to wage a war which will help your bottom line privately. It's so glaringly obvious to anyone with a willingness to question the motives of public officials.
Bush and Cheney are old school oil executives...that's not anything new. Their administration is filled with highly respected, highly educated people who undoubtedly feel that the best way to affect things is to work from the inside, and are professional politicians and diplomats. It's not a matter of supporting the president fully or getting out...there's no doubt that a person like Condolezza Rice, a very, very intelligent and well-respected person, is willing to sacrifice her personal opinions on this matter to further her longer-term, noble political goals such as getting a black woman in a position of power (maybe even president one day). I'm sure there is a lot of lip-biting around the White House these days...
James. |
explain how they will make money off the new contracts |
You're so naive it's incredible. If you actually believe that Cheney, being paid that much in severance, has no political, personal or economic ties to Halliburton, you're even more gullible than you've sounded up to now. How clearly does it have to be laid out? Bush and Cheney were OIL EXECUTIVES...they have long term personal and political ties to the oil industry. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton until this year. You yourself complained that France has oil deals with Iraq...well, those French subsidiaries with oil deals with Iraq are OWNED BY HALLIBURTON. Is that clear enough for you?
James.
Message edited by author 2003-03-26 15:01:13. |
|
|
|
03/26/2003 03:07:15 PM · #98 |
[quote]
okay how about "you sound canadian", which i assure you is not a compliment[/quote]
And I can tell you for a fact that 'you sound American' has NEVER been a compliment in Canada...[/quote]
like anyone in amercia cares. you guys were forgotten about by the world a long time ago[/quote]
um hello? do we need to go into time out? i for one am getting tired of watching the name calling and insulting of people everytime everytime someone says something that someone else disagrees with.
and ach, just because you dont like just canada or whomever else doesnt mean the rest of us americans feel the same. you are embarrasing me. please stop. thanks.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2003 03:08:25 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Originally posted by sher9204:
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by spiderman:
do you believe that these men and women would put, say, personal wealth, ahead of what's "right"?? |
Haliburton, the company that Dick Cheney ran, and is still paying him, just won the contract for rebuilding the Basra oil fields. |
do you have any non-circumstantial proof that Halliburton didn't win the contract legitimately??? or did you just assume that since Mr. Cheney was being paid his legally due severence pay, they got the contract automatically?
i've worked in the oil business for many, many years and i have had many dealings with Halliburton. in my oil business related opinion, Halliburton IS the best company for the job. |
Whether or not they won the contract legitimately is irrelevant...I'm sure they are the best company for the job, but can't you see the shocking conflict of interest in having members of the Bush administration (including Bush's own oil intersts) standing to profit from action in Iraq? The oil argument is dismissed by many pro-war opinions despite this deeply troubling truth. Seems to me to be an excellent way to make a profit...use public funds to wage a war which will help your bottom line privately. It's so glaringly obvious to anyone with a willingness to question the motives of public officials.
Bush and Cheney are old school oil executives...that's not anything new. Their administration is filled with highly respected, highly educated people who undoubtedly feel that the best way to affect things is to work from the inside, and are professional politicians and diplomats. It's not a matter of supporting the president fully or getting out...there's no doubt that a person like Condolezza Rice, a very, very intelligent and well-respected person, is willing to sacrifice her personal opinions on this matter to further her longer-term, noble political goals such as getting a black woman in a position of power (maybe even president one day). I'm sure there is a lot of lip-biting around the White House these days...
James. |
explain how they will make money off the new contracts |
You're so naive it's incredible. If you actually believe that Cheney, being paid that much in severance, has no political, personal or economic ties to Halliburton, you're even more gullible than you've sounded up to now. How clearly does it have to be laid out? Bush and Cheney were OIL EXECUTIVES...they have long term personal and political ties to the oil industry. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton until this year. You yourself complained that France has oil deals with Iraq...well, those French subsidiaries with oil deals with Iraq are OWNED BY HALLIBURTON. Is that clear enough for you?
James. |
no it's not. you think i'm naive but you are just as naive for going on this pointless witch hunt. i could see cheney making money off of stock if he still owned any, but i doubt he does. even if what you are saying is true, you're not going to tell me that you wouldn't help out some friends if you could, not that haliburton needs any helping out. i'm not scared of the oil industry. i'm for anything that will take our dependence off of saudi oil. i'm for strengthening the economy by keeping the price of oil down.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2003 03:10:09 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Alecia:
um hello? do we need to go into time out? i for one am getting tired of watching the name calling and insulting of people everytime everytime someone says something that someone else disagrees with.
and ach, just because you dont like just canada or whomever else doesnt mean the rest of us americans feel the same. you are embarrasing me. please stop. thanks. |
i'm not going to sit here and listen to these people make insuations about me. i don't represent you, you represent yourself. have you actually read every post or what? some of these people have said some terrible things. i'm sorry if you feel offended, i don't know why you do. there are americans dying in iraq and all these people want to talk about is how stupid america is, how it's only for oil, how they hate bush. they could care less about americans dying, and i'm sure after reading some of the posts that it probably makes some of them smile to hear of us casualties. i haven't said anything that wrong considering the conversation. the canadian members that choose to argue just hate america. go read jimmy's posts, zadore's posts. it's unbelievable.
Message edited by author 2003-03-26 15:24:31.
|
|
