|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/08/2006 05:28:29 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Does the US have control of that 4th largest oil reserve? I'd like some info on that Dansig if you have it. |
not yet, the US Army is just soo bad at fighting wars that they just can't win, not even against some sheepherders in the desert ;)
maby they should have trained their own soldiers better, instead of training the Iraqis and Afgans ;)
Message edited by author 2006-06-08 17:30:22.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 05:32:44 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The US has fought with Mexico over disputed territory now part of the US (mainly Texas and California -- well waddaya know -- they both have oil too!). |
Well waddaya know, indeed - Oil had NOTHING to do with it.
Texas was annexed in 1845 but oil wasn't discovered in Texas until 56 years later, in 1901.
California was acquired from Mexico in 1848, but oil wasn't discovered in California until 28 years later, in 1876.
Guess it wasn't about the oil. :) |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 05:35:07 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Does the US have control of that 4th largest oil reserve? I'd like some info on that Dansig if you have it. |
not yet, the US Army is just soo bad at fighting wars that they just can't win, not even against some sheepherders in the desert ;)
maby they should have trained their own soldiers better, instead of training the Iraqis and Afgans ;) |
Oh, okay. Sorry but I thought you actually had some information that I wasn't aware of. I didn't realize that you were simply making predictions. Have you thought about a name change? Maybe DanSigstradamus?
Message edited by author 2006-06-08 17:35:54.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 05:36:08 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
9/11 was planned with the help of the US army and intelligence, the pilots of the 9/11 attack were trained by the US army, and Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, probably to attack the USA to give the USA an excuse to invade Iraq an Afganistan |
 What's your evidence to support that? Let me guess, Loose Change? |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 05:39:42 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The US has fought with Mexico over disputed territory now part of the US (mainly Texas and California -- well waddaya know -- they both have oil too!). |
Well waddaya know, indeed - Oil had NOTHING to do with it.
Texas was annexed in 1845 but oil wasn't discovered in Texas until 56 years later, in 1901.
California was acquired from Mexico in 1848, but oil wasn't discovered in California until 28 years later, in 1876.
Guess it wasn't about the oil. :) |
No -- I know it wasn't about the oil (or gold) -- at the time -- just territoral expansion ... still I'm sure they expected to find some kind of resources there or they wouldn't want it so bad, eh?
With Iraq we've just already got the assay results in hand before jumping the claim ... |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 05:40:42 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
However, not all were killed by the US troops. Many also died from explosions...
You are absolutely right... but my question was directed specifically to the quote made by DanSig who suggested that 400,000 deaths in Iraq were directly attributable to US Troops... A number I do not believe can be substantiated.
Ray |
The figures are not recorded, so other methodologies have to be used. I do not think that the method of extrapolation used on this website is the most scientific, but the base study uses a very solid scientific basis.
//www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html
Their methodology results in a conservative estimate of 250k deaths, and a less conservative estimate could reach 400k or more. The deaths relate to the war: the measurement taken is the rate of death over and above the background rate during the war period (pesumed to be as a consequence of the war). The US could be accused of directly and indirectly causing that many people to die.
As I said: the 400k figure is conceivable, but it more likely that the real figure is a couple of hundred thousand or so lower. Still plenty.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 05:41:35 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DanSig:
9/11 was planned with the help of the US army and intelligence, the pilots of the 9/11 attack were trained by the US army, and Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, probably to attack the USA to give the USA an excuse to invade Iraq an Afganistan |
What's your evidence to support that? Let me guess, Loose Change? |
Do we have any proof that bin Laden was ever taken off the US payroll? The CIA keeps those records pretty secret (except from Robert Novak) ... |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 05:43:14 PM · #33 |
I love it when you chime in legalbeagle. It's too bad your English, you'd a made a great Oglala Lakota (Sioux) Chief.
(Now back to the debate.)
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 05:45:41 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
No, I;m talking about occupation, where you have foreign troops marching in the streets of US cities, when people live in fear etc. |
Occupation doesn't always mean that people live in fear, as you imply.
Message edited by author 2006-06-08 17:47:00. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 05:50:09 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Don't ask an American, ask an Iraqi. |
No, we should be asking Americans, specifically the Bush administration (but as I can't ask them, or they don't have an answer, I'll ask you), for proof of the "imminent threat" that Iraq posed to the United States. THAT is the reason we went to war in Iraq, NOT to liberate the Iraqi people. So I ask you for proof, Ron, of the asserted "imminent threat," and I assume you know what the word "imminent" means. |
Sorry, Judith, but while it would be reasonable to demand that I provide proof for my own assertions, I don't feel that is reasonable to demand that I provide proof for the assertions of others. For example, some in these fora have asserted that "Bush lied". I don't feel compelled to provide proof of their assertions, since I don't agree with them. Neither would I demand that YOU provide proof of their assertions, if you DO agree with them. Now, if YOU, yourself, made that assertion, then it WOULD be reasonable to ask that you provide the proof.
And yes, I do know what "imminent" means. I also know what "baiting" means. |
I'm not baiting you; I'm challenging the implication in your previous statement.
You imply in your earlier "for what" statement -- "Now that you've indicated that the "for what" DOES matter" -- that you agree with the statement that this war is "about freeing someone. From someone." In other words, you're implying that the reason for this war, the "for what," was for the liberation of the Iraqi people. Am I correct in this understanding or not?
If so, I'm challenging the implication that we went to war with Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. That certainly was NOT the reason given to us by the Bush administration for this war, at least not initially.
And by the way, why not ask an American? We have a stake in this war, and it's cost us something, and I don't know where you get off dismissing our voice and our right to say whether it was worth the price we paid.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 06:15:21 PM · #36 |
| And one last thing, Ron: You've defended every other miserable lie of the Bush administration, so why not have a go at defending the "imminent threat" lie? I'm just curious what you might come up with. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 06:16:15 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Occupation doesn't always mean that people live in fear, as you imply. |
Example please?(from modern history, say 1900 onward) |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 06:21:29 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DanSig:
9/11 was planned with the help of the US army and intelligence, the pilots of the 9/11 attack were trained by the US army, and Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, probably to attack the USA to give the USA an excuse to invade Iraq an Afganistan |
What's your evidence to support that? Let me guess, Loose Change? |
Well, from BBC News:
"He [Bin Laden] received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian. "
From Newsweek, September 15:
“U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes used in Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s.”
Whether the US actively planned 9/11 is a matter of opinion - obviously there is no hard evidence, but there are various facts that could be used to form such an argument.
ETA: there's absolutely LOADS in the 9/11commission about how many of the terrorists were trained as pilots in the US - that bits not refutable.
Message edited by author 2006-06-08 18:25:28. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 06:32:21 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Don't ask an American, ask an Iraqi. |
No, we should be asking Americans, specifically the Bush administration (but as I can't ask them, or they don't have an answer, I'll ask you), for proof of the "imminent threat" that Iraq posed to the United States. THAT is the reason we went to war in Iraq, NOT to liberate the Iraqi people. So I ask you for proof, Ron, of the asserted "imminent threat," and I assume you know what the word "imminent" means. |
Sorry, Judith, but while it would be reasonable to demand that I provide proof for my own assertions, I don't feel that is reasonable to demand that I provide proof for the assertions of others. For example, some in these fora have asserted that "Bush lied". I don't feel compelled to provide proof of their assertions, since I don't agree with them. Neither would I demand that YOU provide proof of their assertions, if you DO agree with them. Now, if YOU, yourself, made that assertion, then it WOULD be reasonable to ask that you provide the proof.
And yes, I do know what "imminent" means. I also know what "baiting" means. |
I'm not baiting you; I'm challenging the implication in your previous statement.
You imply in your earlier "for what" statement -- "Now that you've indicated that the "for what" DOES matter" -- that you agree with the statement that this war is "about freeing someone. From someone." In other words, you're implying that the reason for this war, the "for what," was for the liberation of the Iraqi people. Am I correct in this understanding or not? |
Not. I merely wanted srdanz to explain why the MILLIONS who died as a result of WWI and WWII seemed to have a justifiable "for what" in his view, while the hundreds of THOUSANDS who have died in Iraq do NOT have a justifiable "for what" in his view. And I did not say anything about the reason for entering any of the wars - just about the justifiable reasons for people dying in them.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
If so, I'm challenging the implication that we went to war with Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. That certainly was NOT the reason given to us by the Bush administration for this war, at least not initially. |
Challenge away. But not me. I'm not the one who made the argument to enter the war. I do believe that the original reasons given were valid, as did the majority of the US Congress, who approved it, at the time. And, while it may very well be that the original reasons for going to war were not found to be as serious as originally thought, after the fact, once coalition forces were in Iraq, and Hussein was deposed, it doesn't seem right that we should abandon the millions of liberated Iraqi citizens to be once again subjected to the type of existence they suffered in before the war.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And by the way, why not ask an American? We have a stake in this war, and it's cost us something, and I don't know where you get off dismissing our voice and our right to say whether it was worth the price we paid. |
Was it worth 116,000 American deaths in World War 1?
Was it worth 405,000 American deaths in World War 2?
And just what gives someone the right to say whether it was "worth it".
Am I not included in the "our voice" and "our right"?
Or is that right only reserved for those who agree with you?
Because my voice says that it IS worth the price we are paying. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 06:32:30 PM · #40 |
If you want to find sources for all the "facts" that are thrown around, here's a good site, that gives a timeline of 9/11 development - very biased site as a whole, but everything is cited well, giving it much more credibility. GreaT for those who want to believe its a whole US conspiracy lol. Not that I dismiss that idea entirely though
Message edited by author 2006-06-08 18:56:17. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 06:38:45 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by kirsty_mcn:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DanSig:
9/11 was planned with the help of the US army and intelligence, the pilots of the 9/11 attack were trained by the US army, and Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, probably to attack the USA to give the USA an excuse to invade Iraq an Afganistan |
What's your evidence to support that? Let me guess, Loose Change? |
Well, from BBC News:
"He [Bin Laden] received security training from the CIA itself, according to Middle Eastern analyst Hazhir Teimourian. "
From Newsweek, September 15:
“U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes used in Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s.”
Whether the US actively planned 9/11 is a matter of opinion - obviously there is no hard evidence, but there are various facts that could be used to form such an argument.
ETA: there's absolutely LOADS in the 9/11commission about how many of the terrorists were trained as pilots in the US - that bits not refutable. |
Ok the bin laden stuff I know. We helped the Mujahideen back in the 80's when they were fighting the Soviets in Afganistan. That's not what interest me. What interest me is the 9/11 was planned by the US part which to date, I have seen no evidence for. If there is I'd like to see some. As for the terrorists training in the US as pilots what does that prove? People come to the states all the time to seek education and as a result we have educated many of the world's leaders as well as it's terrorists. That's simply a byproduct of having a free society. What I'd like to know is how is any of this different regarding 9/11? |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 06:39:45 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And by the way, why not ask an American? We have a stake in this war, and it's cost us something, and I don't know where you get off dismissing our voice and our right to say whether it was worth the price we paid. |
You have a right to say whether it was worth the price you paid, but only Iraqi civilians can say whether the result was worth the cost for them.
Anyhoot, not sure what I'm doing in the Rant forum. G'bye
ETA: yanko, I'm not arguing for DanSig, simply clarifying that what he said was based in facts. The conclusion he has come to based on those facts is of course subjective, and I personally don't believe the US planned 9/11 for their own purposes, but wouldn't be surprised if they were partly aware of it in advance, for example
Message edited by author 2006-06-18 10:48:35.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 06:56:06 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by kirsty_mcn:
If you want to find sources for all the "facts" that are thrown around, here's a good site, that gives a timeline of 9/11 development - very biased site as a whole, but everything is cited well, giving it much more credibility. GreaT for those who want to believe its a whole US conspiracy lol. Not that I dismiss that idea entirely though |
woah, is this for real??
"Approved by the top Pentagon chiefs, Operation Northwoods proposed fabricating terrorism in US cities and killing innocent citizens to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war."
There's links to declassified documents, seems pretty unddisputable - that's pretty darn scary. Now I understand why people believe Bush could have conjured 9/11 as a premise to war....listen to this:
"This planâ€Â¦.should be developed to focus all efforts on a specific ltimate objective which would provide adequate justification for US military intervention. Such a plan would enable a logical build-up of incidents to be combined with other seemingly unrelated events to camouflage the ultimate objective."
Scary, huh? |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 07:08:40 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in December, 1941. I believe the Japanese shelled the beaches near San Diego or Santa Barbara a little bit, but the contiguous states were largely unscathed by direct enemy fire during WW II.
|
I said United States, not the colonies... |
The whole thing is a colony ... you'll have to specify more precisely where and when you want that line drawn if you want more specific answers.
It was mainly "Americans" who suffered at Pearl Harbor -- it was an attack on a military base.
But I agree largely with your point -- how would we (USA residents) feel if some people were being blown up in a local Safeway or McDonaldsevery day.? |
Better yet, how would Americans feel if another country sent its army into the USA, threw down the government and then occupied the country by fighting supporters of the old government? I think Americans would fight the same type of war that was fought in Vietnam and that is currently being fought in Iraq. This all being based on a scenario where a stronger army invaded and decapitated all the US armed forces of course. Americans would no doubt wage guerrilla warfare using similar tactics used in Iraq (probably minus the suicide bombers).
Just a thought. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 07:51:07 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And one last thing, Ron: You've defended every other miserable lie of the Bush administration, so why not have a go at defending the "imminent threat" lie? I'm just curious what you might come up with. |
To any reasonable person, someone who appears to be having a heart attack is in "imminent" danger of dying unless prompt medical care is given. Hence, a call to 911, an ambulance, paramedics, emergency room, etc. etc.
Occasionally, it turns out that the individual was NOT having a heart attack, but was, instead, only suffering from severe heartburn, an attack of angina, or some other condition that exhibits symptoms commonly associated with a heart attack. A condition that, if known at the time, would NOT have led to the conclusion that the person was in "imminent" danger of dying. But a prudent person would always take actions consistent with the belief that the person WAS having a heart attack, and WAS in imminent danger of dying, rather than risk that he/she was NOT.
There were a number of symptoms at the time that a reasonable person would have interpreted as indicating that Sadaam Hussein WAS harboring weapons of mass destruction, and that he WAS preparing to increase his capibilities related to weapons of mass destruction, and that he WAS prepared to use them.
Hence, the Administration's conclusion that he posed an "imminent" threat. A majority of the US Congress concurred.
So, the Administration was wrong. So, the Congress was wrong.
But that is history.
Today is not history ( yet ) - nor is tomorrow.
So, what, exactly, would you do Today, or Tomorrow, if you were the President - the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America.
Would you immediately withdraw all military personnel?
Would you double the number of military personnel?
What would you do?
Other than continue harping about that which you cannot change - since it's history. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 07:56:39 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by RonB:
There were a number of symptoms at the time that a reasonable person would have interpreted as indicating that Sadaam Hussein WAS harboring weapons of mass destruction, and that he WAS preparing to increase his capibilities related to weapons of mass destruction, and that he WAS prepared to use them.
Hence, the Administration's conclusion that he posed an "imminent" threat. A majority of the US Congress concurred.
So, the Administration was wrong. So, the Congress was wrong. |
There was equal or greater "evidence" -- known to the administration at the time -- that these "symproms" were dyspepsia and not appencdicitis. The administration chose which bits to show Congress; thus Congress' decision is irrelevant because it was based on incomplete facts, known to the administration but deliberately withheld from Congress. That's not "wrong" -- that's dishonesty. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 08:14:07 PM · #47 |
Please look at the PNAC (The Plan For a New American Century) drawn up years before 911, by the very people who sit in the Bush admin now! The document states that all that was needed to instigate the plan was some event like a new Pearl Harbour...how nice of Bin LAden to oblige Bush and co.
Also the Downing Street Memo,
The Downing Street "Memo" is actually meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002. Published by The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005 it was the first hard evidence from within the UK or US governments that exposed the truth about how the Iraq war began.
Since that time, much more information has come to light through leaks of secret government documents and the accounts of an increasing number of people who have witnessed the administration’s wrongdoing firsthand.
There is now in the public record a large body of evidence that vividly illustrates:
Bush’s long-standing intent to invade Iraq
Bush’s willingness to provoke Saddam (in a variety of ways) into providing a pretext for war
The fact that the war effectively began with an air campaign nearly a year before the March 2003 invasion and months before Congressional approval for the use of force
The administration’s widespread effort to crush dissent and manipulate information that would counter its justification for war
The lack of planning for the war’s aftermath and a fundamental lack of understanding of the Iraqi society
From cherry-picked intelligence to a non-existent plan to win the peace; from no-bid contracts for reconstruction to character assassination for anyone who dares to question the premises of the war—the Bush administration has perpetrated what is by any measure one of the most egregious foreign policy misstep in our history.
DowningStreetMemo.com
One Year Later
In May of 2005, a conversation on a blog inspired three individuals to start a web site.
One year and nearly one million site visits later, DowningStreetMemo.com stands as an example of citizen journalism in action.
A comprehensive, searchable database of many of the events, that led up to the US invasion
of Iraq.
This extensive reference contains data on the political and diplomatic decisions and developments, military activity, plans, statements of officials and reports from the media.
A majority of the American people now believes that the president intentionally misled our nation into war, and nearly half say he should be impeached if that assertion can be proven. The only question that remains is: will he and his administration be held accountable?
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 08:14:14 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by RonB:
There were a number of symptoms at the time that a reasonable person would have interpreted as indicating that Sadaam Hussein WAS harboring weapons of mass destruction, and that he WAS preparing to increase his capibilities related to weapons of mass destruction, and that he WAS prepared to use them.
Hence, the Administration's conclusion that he posed an "imminent" threat. A majority of the US Congress concurred.
So, the Administration was wrong. So, the Congress was wrong. |
the US goverment has been threatening North Korea for many years because they have nukes and are hostile, but the USA hasn't invaded North Korea yet, why ?
because they have no oil, gold or anything else worth taking, but they do have a very hostile communist warmongerer running the country, and he has plenty of nukes to kill every american 10 times, and he has threatened to do that if the Americans don't stop interfering in their buisness.
now THERE is the imminent threat, but the Americans are just too scared to do something about it !
or is it true that they only invade countries that are rich ?
Message edited by author 2006-06-08 20:14:44.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 08:17:10 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
Originally posted by RonB:
There were a number of symptoms at the time that a reasonable person would have interpreted as indicating that Sadaam Hussein WAS harboring weapons of mass destruction, and that he WAS preparing to increase his capibilities related to weapons of mass destruction, and that he WAS prepared to use them.
Hence, the Administration's conclusion that he posed an "imminent" threat. A majority of the US Congress concurred.
So, the Administration was wrong. So, the Congress was wrong. |
the US goverment has been threatening North Korea for many years because they have nukes and are hostile, but the USA hasn't invaded North Korea yet, why ?
because they have no oil, gold or anything else worth taking, but they do have a very hostile communist warmongerer running the country, and he has plenty of nukes to kill every american 10 times, and he has threatened to do that if the Americans don't stop interfering in their buisness.
now THERE is the imminent threat, but the Americans are just too scared to do something about it !
or is it true that they only invade countries that are rich ? |
OUCH! |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 08:17:17 PM · #50 |
| Also consider the mess surrounding Valerie Plame and Wilson, for which Libby is carrying the can at the moment until someone joins up all the dots...Rove has been in front of the Grand Jury what? 5 Times now? |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 01:09:29 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 01:09:29 PM EDT.
|
What's your evidence to support that? Let me guess, Loose Change?
