PDA

View Full Version : Why France and Russia were against liberating Iraq



eg8r
01-30-2004, 08:56 AM
Here is an article from the ABC News website. Leaves little doubt why France and Russia were against the liberation of Iraq.

France and Russia (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/saddam_oil_vouchers_040129-1.html) There are four pages to the article.

eg8r

nAz
01-30-2004, 09:03 AM
that sounds about right, i wonder how many more names are probably missing from that list. I bet no one on it will do any time or pay any fines.

Cueless Joey
01-30-2004, 09:08 AM
Horse kaka.
Black propaganda b.s.
France and Russia are peace-loving nations.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
01-30-2004, 10:35 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

So I guess this will be the lead story on all the networks. NOT !!!

Kato
01-30-2004, 11:11 AM
All I can say is................WOW!!!!!!!!!

Kato~~~would like to get some barrels and make large bread so I can buy a new Justic case without spending my own money.

eg8r
01-30-2004, 12:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
that sounds about right, i wonder how many more names are probably missing from that list. I bet no one on it will do any time or pay any fines. <hr /></blockquote> I doubt it also. Not to mention this was all done under the UN's nose with the UN in charge of the whole situation. This was their program in place in which Saddam was working his deals.

eg8r

Qtec
01-30-2004, 12:10 PM
Is the USA a member of the U.N?

Q

Qtec
01-30-2004, 12:18 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3445975.stm

NOW he wants facts. HaHa
Q

Wally_in_Cincy
01-30-2004, 01:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Is the USA a member of the U.N?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

reluctlantly

Kato
01-30-2004, 02:55 PM
Unfortunately.

Kato

eg8r
01-30-2004, 03:21 PM
Hey Q, any input on the thread?

eg8r &lt;~~~steering Q back to the thread

eg8r
01-30-2004, 03:24 PM
Do you have a point or will it take 400 little questions like this one to get you to say what is on your mind?

LOL, I will follow along with your question and the reasoning behind it. Does that mean the UN supports the liberation of Iraq?

So, do you have anything to say about the subject matter?

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
01-30-2004, 03:29 PM
I think he's insunating that since the US is a member of the UN and Dubya is President of the US then Dubya is behind all this. Twisted, circuitous logic at its finest.

eg8r
01-30-2004, 03:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think he's insunating that since the US is a member of the UN and Dubya is President of the US then Dubya is behind all this. Twisted, circuitous logic at its finest. <hr /></blockquote> Sure, and with the same logic, since the US is part of the UN, then the UN is behind the liberation of Iraq! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r &lt;~~~The UN did not have guts to liberate Iraq

Qtec
01-30-2004, 04:32 PM
I wonder why the Ministry of Oil was the ONLY building that was not ransacked when the people of Baghdad ran riot.

Maybe the US was worried about all the records of their own dirty dealings with Saddam getting into the wrong hands.
Nobody is totally innocent in this.

As it turns out, surprise, surprise, there doesnt seem to have been any actual reason for invading Iraq in the first place.
Dont tell me he gassed his own people because that was more than 10 years ago and nobody did anything about it then.

Like I told you LONG ago, this war didnt happen for the reasons that have been presented. The whole thing is a scam.
Not one single accusation that was made by GW or T.Blair has turned out to be true.
There was no NEW intelligence that forced the allies to attack out of self defence. There was no immediate threat.

The anthrax 'attack'in the US produced maximum fear for minimum casualties.
They still havent found out who did it. Obviously its not that important.

I want to hear what Saddam has to say , dont you? Dont hear much about him anymore. I think we know why.

He must have a lot of very embarrasing things to tell about people who are still in power.

Is he being debriefed or briefed? /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
01-30-2004, 04:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Like I told you LONG ago, this war didnt happen for the reasons that have been presented. The whole thing is a scam.
<hr /></blockquote>

so what was the reason?

eg8r
01-30-2004, 09:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why the Ministry of Oil was the ONLY building that was not ransacked when the people of Baghdad ran riot.

Maybe the US was worried about all the records of their own dirty dealings with Saddam getting into the wrong hands.
Nobody is totally innocent in this.
<hr /></blockquote> You are absolutely right. France thought they would get away with it, and now their true colors are flapping in the wind.

[ QUOTE ]
As it turns out, surprise, surprise, there doesnt seem to have been any actual reason for invading Iraq in the first place.
Dont tell me he gassed his own people because that was more than 10 years ago and nobody did anything about it then.
<hr /></blockquote> Q, this quote shows exactly what a joke you have been on this board the whole time. The 10 years ago that you are talking about is the time in which we allowed the UN to take control. It was in the UN's hands when nothing was done. Now that the US and its allies step up to do something, you bring up instances of the past and say nothing was done then. Nothing more than a joke. I don't understand why it is so hard for you and the rest of the doubters to understand, SADDAM AGREED HE HAD WMDs which is why he agreed to all the treaties in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
Like I told you LONG ago, this war didnt happen for the reasons that have been presented. The whole thing is a scam.
<hr /></blockquote> Like you have told us before, we should have let the UN take care of things. Well, given your abundant knowledge which you cleared up a paragraph earlier, the UN was taking care of things just nicely only 10 short years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
There was no NEW intelligence that forced the allies to attack out of self defence. There was no immediate threat.
<hr /></blockquote> You have no idea what you are talking about, let alone any proof. Who is to say, Saddam did not take some of his money and give it to Al Qaeda to continue terrorizing America? Is that so hard to believe? Or are you still taking the stance that Saddam would never have any dealings with Bin Laden? Come on that is the funniest stuff you have said in awhile.

[ QUOTE ]
The anthrax 'attack'in the US produced maximum fear for minimum casualties.
They still havent found out who did it. Obviously its not that important.
<hr /></blockquote> What is happening here, taking some drugs or something? How on earth do you switch subjects so fast. Stick to one, you are having enough trouble making any sense with the first one.

[ QUOTE ]
I want to hear what Saddam has to say , dont you? Dont hear much about him anymore. I think we know why.
<hr /></blockquote> Enlighten us.

[ QUOTE ]
Is he being debriefed or briefed? <hr /></blockquote> Would you even know/understand the difference?

eg8r

ted harris
01-31-2004, 07:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>I want to hear what Saddam has to say , dont you? Dont hear much about him anymore. I think we know why.
Q <hr /></blockquote>
You must be kidding! Well, I would like to know what happened to the billions of dollars stolen from the Iraqi's themselves, and by Hussein's own admission was used for biological, nuclear and other forms of weaponry. Otherwise, I don't really much care what he has to say. And I think if you step outside of France, Germany, and the Netherlands /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif, you'll see that not many others do either. I mean, just look a the news clips from inside Iraq, Iran, etc. people (children) marching in the streets jumping up and down, firing guns in the air, Saddam included! Barbarians they are. How can anyone look at the actions of George Bush and Saddam Hussein, and make any comparison? I'll tell you how...anti-americanism, plain and simple. Talk about bias!

Qtec
01-31-2004, 10:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ted harris:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>I want to hear what Saddam has to say , dont you? Dont hear much about him anymore. I think we know why.
Q <hr /></blockquote>
You must be kidding! Well, I would like to know what happened to the billions of dollars stolen from the Iraqi's themselves, and by Hussein's own admission was used for biological, nuclear and other forms of weaponry. Otherwise, I don't really much care what he has to say. And I think if you step outside of France, Germany, and the Netherlands /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif, you'll see that not many others do either. I mean, just look a the news clips from inside Iraq, Iran, etc. people (children) marching in the streets jumping up and down, firing guns in the air, Saddam included! Barbarians they are. How can anyone look at the actions of George Bush and Saddam Hussein, and make any comparison? I'll tell you how...anti-americanism, plain and simple. Talk about bias! <hr /></blockquote>


Ted, I bet you have more in common with an Iraqi cuemaker /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif than GW and his cronies.

I have nothing against anybody I have never met. That would be stupid.

Except politicians.
They are in the positions of power and should be accountable for their actions.

I found that people in New York are just the same as people over here in Rotterdam....... and that didnt surprise me at all.

Q

eg8r
01-31-2004, 03:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I have nothing against anybody I have never met. That would be stupid.

Except politicians. <hr /></blockquote> So what are you admitting to? One sentence it is stupid to have something against someone you have never met, and the next sentence you find someone (whom you have something against) that meets the criteria. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r

nAz
01-31-2004, 05:12 PM
I got to ask, can someone tell me what was ther reason for the war again? and please tell me what the Prez said it was in chronological oder, cause it sure changed from week to week.

eg8r
01-31-2004, 09:52 PM
Ask Q. He seems to know, or he just asks open blanket questions for no reason at all.

eg8r

nhp
01-31-2004, 11:21 PM
Why I am against "liberating Iraq"-
1. We had no justification, with the exception that Saddam is a bad person.
2. North Korea was and still is a bigger threat
3. Whatever happened to Osama?
4. Our soldiers are dying every day.
5. Our soldiers are dying every day.
6. Our soldiers are dying every day.
7. " "
8. " "
9. " "
10. " "

eg8r
02-01-2004, 03:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Why I am against "liberating Iraq"-
1. We had no justification, with the exception that Saddam is a bad person. <font color="blue"> LOL. Yeah, the bully that steals lunch money is a bad person, Saddam was an admitted killer. I am sorry you cannot differentiate. </font color>
2. North Korea was and still is a bigger threat <font color="blue"> The war with Iraq was not just about terrorism, and just maybe with the swiftness we moved through Iraq Korea has been giving everything a second thought. Just maybe. </font color>
3. Whatever happened to Osama? <font color="blue"> Now that we can see you must be Q in disguise, could you please tell me what Osama has to do with the actual subject matter of the thread? Go ahead I am all ears? I don't remember seeing Osama's name on the list of Saddam supporters who was receiving barrels of oil, but maybe you have a connection. No one ever came out and addressed the US and stated, the US will not continue to move through its agenda until Osama has been captured. In case you missed the bold statements of the military/government, in the news this past week they gauranteed Osama will be caught this year. I just hope it happens late in the summer or very early fall, then this sort of question will be moot. </font color>
4. Our soldiers are dying every day. <font color="blue"> Isn't that what happens when you go to war? </font color>
5. Our soldiers are dying every day. <font color="blue"> Would you be so wise as to never go to war if there was a chance your own soldier might die? </font color>
6. Our soldiers are dying every day. <font color="blue"> They could use our prayers for a safe return. </font color>
7. " "
8. " "
9. " "
10. " "
<hr /></blockquote> eg8r

nhp
02-08-2004, 08:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Yeah, the bully that steals lunch money is a bad person, Saddam was an admitted killer. I am sorry you cannot differentiate.
<hr /></blockquote>

And Bush sent more inmates to death in Texas than any other state in history. There are more violent criminals in Los Angeles and New York City than in Texas, which goes to show it wasn't "The worse the crime, the worse the fate".

[ QUOTE ]
The war with Iraq was not just about terrorism, and just maybe with the swiftness we moved through Iraq Korea has been giving everything a second thought. Just maybe. <hr /></blockquote>

The war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, until now. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, but all to do with greed. Now our troops are dying every day because of terrorists. Most of the terrorists are ones who infilitrated the country. Back to North Korea, lets see, they were threatening to nuke us, while Iraq was threatening....um...nothing? According to Bush, we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD. We have concrete evidence, hell, N.Korea admitted to having WMD, continued to admit and threaten us throughout our war in Iraq, obviously we didn't set an example to them.

[ QUOTE ]
Now that we can see you must be Q in disguise, could you please tell me what Osama has to do with the actual subject matter of the thread? Go ahead I am all ears? I don't remember seeing Osama's name on the list of Saddam supporters who was receiving barrels of oil, but maybe you have a connection. No one ever came out and addressed the US and stated, the US will not continue to move through its agenda until Osama has been captured. In case you missed the bold statements of the military/government, in the news this past week they gauranteed Osama will be caught this year. I just hope it happens late in the summer or very early fall, then this sort of question will be moot.
<hr /></blockquote>
Funny you say this, because wasn't Bush just so sure that Saddam had links to Osama? When Osama isn't caught, and we invade another country to make us forget about him, what are you gonna say then?

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't that what happens when you go to war? <hr /></blockquote>
There are two types of wars, a Just War, and an Unjust War. Our men and women are dying for a cause that is centered around greed and ignorance. It's not a war, its an occupation, we have no good reason to be there. You know we are there for oil, its obvious. Do you believe our soldiers deserve to die for the financial gain of others? Is that a just cause?

And no, I'm not Q

Dagwood
02-09-2004, 12:57 AM
Honestly...I think that the policy makers who started this war did so with information, (intelligence)about WMD in Iraq, which they thought was sound. And you know what? At that time, it very well could have been. Situations change on the battlefield constantly. Who knows? Maybe the WMD's were moved out and the evidence to support that they were there destroyed. Maybe there were never any WMD's in the first place. I DON'T KNOW. But...as a soldier currently serving in the Army, I believe that the war WAS justified. I believe that we are over there for mostly the right reasons, although I have no doubt that there were some alterior motives for this. You can't paint this war black and white. There are too many grey area's to it. Many of my fellow Soldiers, Seamen, Airmen, and Marines which I work with on a daily basis absolutely don't agree with the warm, (well, it's kinda hard to find a Marine who doesn't agree with the war...they're all about killing, maiming, and turning the green grass red...lol), but, through all of it, they follow the lead of their superiors, including the Commander in Cheif.


Personally, I think that we should help them re-build thier infa-structure, and leave. Let them decide what kind of government should run THEIR country. But I'm not in a position to make that decision. I have to follow the orders handed down which are a result of the people who DO have the responsibility to make those decisions. It's real easy for people who don't have even a percentage of the information on the situation to say what should and should not be done. Who knows, if you had the information that the policy makers have, you may very well take the same course of action.

As far as North Korea goes...that is a sleeping giant that we don't want to disturb. Not because we would lose. But the casualties which we would endure in the initial strokes of the war would be catastrophic. And that's WITHOUT the nukes. You have to realize, that N. Korea has at least 20 times more personnel on the other side of the DMZ than we have stationed in S. Korea. If it were a war of atrition, we would not survive. In a prolonged campaign, we would most deffinitely prevail. BUT...consider this aspect to. North Korea is a communist country. Their partner is China. Do we really want to instigate them??? They are possibly the one country in the world that even the mighty U.S. Military doesn't want to mess with. Their special forces number TWICE our entire military roster. That's just their SF guys. If we go after N. Korea, we bring China into the picture, and that's not something that we want at all. Better to let Korea make a mistake, make sure that China is going to stay at least neutral, and then take it to them. The best strategy I've found in dealing with the far eastern culture, is to let them save face. If you do that, there is little to worry about. Not that you don't have to, but it deffinitely placates them a bit.

I'm proud to be a soldier. I'm proud of what we are doing, I think it's the right thing to do. I enjoy doing what I have to contribute to the war effort. It was a great day when Saddam was captured. Now we will be focusing in on the other big name that's still at large...Osama. And we'll get him. USA! USA! USA!

Dags

nhp
02-09-2004, 07:03 AM
I hold a different point of view than you do. I support our troops, I don't support the cause. A close friend of mine returned home from Iraq, a Marine. He admitted we had no business attacking Iraq. But, like you said, there are many grey areas. Our country could have prevented a future threat from Saddam by capturing him. I was happy when he was captured, what bothers me is the amount of lives lost when there could have been a diplomatic solution to the whole situation. We basically told Saddam "You have a couple days to surrender your WMD's, or we attack." Well, how many officials have resigned, humiliated because there was no evidence of WMD's, so if there really weren't WMD's in Iraq, there was nothing Saddam could have done to prevent his country from being attacked. We forced a war upon them. The result of this was many innocent lives lost, and many brave soldiers of ours lost. There were countless men who fought to the death for Saddam, because he threatened to kill their whole families if they defected. As for the terrorists and Saddam loyalists, to hell with them, I hope they rott.

As for North Korea, the problem with letting them do something first, is that the only thing they would do is fire a nuke at us. That would be catastrophic, the amount of lives lost. It would give us a reason to attack them, but the fact of the matter is, if we let them act first, we lose alot of lives. Here is another problem, how is our country going to find support from outsiders for another war, even if the cause is just? Bush has already ruined our credibility with many countries, who would pose valuable allies were we to go to war with China and Korea.

eg8r
02-09-2004, 08:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And Bush sent more inmates to death in Texas than any other state in history. There are more violent criminals in Los Angeles and New York City than in Texas, which goes to show it wasn't "The worse the crime, the worse the fate".
<hr /></blockquote> This is going to be great. Could you please explain how you can compare a convicted inmate to be killed with an innocent civilian being killed just because the killer does not like him? I don't even know how to answer your next sentence, it does not even make sense. If your more violent criminals lived in Texas they would have been dealt the same way (is it not obvious to you that those more violent criminals in NY and LA are not governed by Texas law). This is getting stupid now. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, until now. <hr /></blockquote> Until now? I don't think you even want to debate intelligently, you just want to argue.

[ QUOTE ]
Now our troops are dying every day because of terrorists. Most of the terrorists are ones who infilitrated the country. <hr /></blockquote> Are you saying there are terrorists in Iraq? Which country are you talking about?

[ QUOTE ]
Back to North Korea, <hr /></blockquote> Are you having a conversation with yourself? No one was talking about North Korea.

[ QUOTE ]
Funny you say this, because wasn't Bush just so sure that Saddam had links to Osama? When Osama isn't caught, and we invade another country to make us forget about him, what are you gonna say then?
<hr /></blockquote> Is there anything in our past to prove that we might just do that. More stupidity. I am not playing an "if" game with you, it is childish.

[ QUOTE ]
There are two types of wars, a Just War, and an Unjust War. <hr /></blockquote> You are still in school aren't you. I bet your wonderful little professor is patting you on the back for that quote.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a war, its an occupation, we have no good reason to be there. You know we are there for oil, its obvious. <hr /></blockquote> The war is over. Hello McFly. If it is obvious then there is probably some concrete evidence floating around that you are privy to. So tell us...What is obvious to you that we are there for oil?

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe our soldiers deserve to die for the financial gain of others? Is that a just cause?
<hr /></blockquote> Since you bring it up, I think it is very honorable for our men to go over to Iraq and remove Saddam from power. On top of all the killing, he was enjoying tremendous financial gains over the sale of oil to other countries in complete defiance of the UN. One more example of how the UN is a waste of time. Much like replying to your post.

eg8r

eg8r
02-09-2004, 08:03 AM
Thank you Dagwood for the response. NHP is a bleeding liberal and would never admit any truth in anything you just said.

eg8r

eg8r
02-09-2004, 08:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
what bothers me is the amount of lives lost when there could have been a diplomatic solution to the whole situation. <hr /></blockquote> How about you give us some insight to this solution that you are positive would have worked.

How much longer did Saddam need? How much longer till Diplomacy would have worked? We were diplomatic for 12 years. How much more do you want? I just cannot wait to hear your solution. Would you use the UN to help? Saddam was ignoring the UN sanctions and turning around and screwing the UN out of fortunes in oil. LOL, this is a joke. I am so sure that you would have rathered start up conversation with Saddam. Surely after he had slaughtered 100s of thousands of his own people, you could talk some sense into him. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r

Dagwood
02-09-2004, 02:32 PM
I think you missunderstand what I said about Korea. I never said "let them attack first." I said let them make the first mistake. And then wait for China to back off and assure us that they aren't going to have anything to do with this conflict. Did you know that we are technically still at war with N. Korea? There was never an end to the war, just a tentative cease fire.

A diplomatic solution to remove Saddam? Well, it's a little after the fact, but in what I know about the middle eastern culture, that would have NEVER been possible. That is not the way they work. It's just that different from the rest of the world. Just like the far eastern culture. If you deal to each cultures strengths and weakneses, you will prevail. We are doing that right now, and that is why, what we are seeing seems so bass-ackwards. Because it's not something we woudl do in OUR or YOUR culture. Be a little more worldly and realize that your way isn't the highway.

Dags

nhp
02-11-2004, 05:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Until now? I don't think you even want to debate intelligently, you just want to argue.
<hr /></blockquote>

Press Conference at the White House on 31 January 2003. Here's the key portion:

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

George W. Bush: I can't make that claim.

Tony Blair: That answers your question.

I suppose you haven't heard of this, eg8r. For some reason, the media hasn't said much of it.
Here is a link to the transcript of the entire conference:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying there are terrorists in Iraq? Which country are you talking about?
<hr /></blockquote>

Either you are acting like the oblivious fool, or you really are one.

Washington -- Nineteen al-Qaida terrorists are among some 248 foreign fighters that have been captured by U.S. forces after infiltrating Iraq, says Ambassador Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq."
source:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/texts/03092608.htm

[ QUOTE ]
Are you having a conversation with yourself? No one was talking about North Korea.
<hr /></blockquote>

Umm, I quoted you talking about North Korea in my last post, genius.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there anything in our past to prove that we might just do that. More stupidity. I am not playing an "if" game with you, it is childish.
<hr /></blockquote>

Hmm, invading other countries for suspicious (as they were projected) reasons, lets think for a second. Ah yes, here you go: Gulf War I, Gulf War II, The US Invasion of Greneda, The US Invasion of Panama, is that enough for you? Don't get me started on the last two I mentioned, if you know anything about them.

[ QUOTE ]
You are still in school aren't you. I bet your wonderful little professor is patting you on the back for that quote.<hr /></blockquote>

What I said comes from my father, a US Army Veteran and former POW of WWII. I am in my 20's, my father is now 81. It's different having such an old father, but I learned alot from him. He wasn't drafted, he volunteered, telling the recruiter to make sure he went to the front lines. He was captured by the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge in 1945, and was a POW for 5 months. After surviving the bloodiest ground battle for the US in Europe, and enduring starvation and sickness as a POW, I am confident he can define what a "Just War" is.

[ QUOTE ]
The war is over. Hello McFly. If it is obvious then there is probably some concrete evidence floating around that you are privy to. So tell us...What is obvious to you that we are there for oil?
<hr /></blockquote>

The war has turned into an occupation, just like I implied. Here you go on the oil issue:

Ever heard of Paul O'Neill? He was George Bush's former Treasury Secretary. He was in charge of everything that had to do with economics in the White House. He was fired a year ago for disagreeing too many times with the President. O'Neill was the main source of a new book, entitled "The Price of Loyalty", written by Ron Suskind.

Quoted by O'Neill: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

More stuff: Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

Source:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

Even more stuff on oil:
(before Gulf War II)
The reason that oil plays a part in any future conflict with Iraq has to do with the amount of oil available on the free market. On the free market, whenever there is an increase in supply of a product, the price of that product generally decreases. Such is the hope of the Bush administration with regard to the price of oil should they remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Currently, Iraq is allowed to export some 2 million barrels of oil per day (bpd), which finds its way into the global marketplace; shortly after the Gulf War, Iraq's oil exports were restricted as part of the United Nations oil-for-food program. Before the Gulf War began, Iraq was exporting 3.5 million bpd, meaning at least another 1.5 million barrels of oil were being released into the global marketplace each day as compared with 2 million bpd now. If Iraq were to once again rise to that level of exports, there would be more oil supply in the global market and this would cause a drop in oil prices.


The only way for Iraq to once again export 3.5 million bpd will be for the United Nations sanctions to end. Once the sanctions end, Iraq will be able to export oil at their full capacity as they did before the Gulf War. Because the United States and Britain believe strongly that the sanctions should remain in place until Saddam Hussein is removed from power, they have looked for other solutions to solve this problem of high oil prices. The Bush administration decided the sanctions were not succeeding in removing Hussein and it was time they just removed him themselves, putting their own friendly government into power and thus putting an end to the need for sanctions.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Source:

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1016

Still want more? Here's something just for you from your own fellow conservatives:

"Why indulge North Korea while scourging Iraq? First, oil. Iraq’s oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia. Considering that the Bush administration has embarked on a long-term campaign militarily to dominate and exploit the oil of Central Asia’s Caspian Basin, it is not a stretch of imagination to believe that control of the more proximate oil of Iraq is also high on the administration’s petro-agenda."


I suggest you read this entire article, written by your buddies.

Source:

http://www.amconmag.com/10_7/the_road_to_folly.html

[ QUOTE ]
On top of all the killing, he was enjoying tremendous financial gains over the sale of oil to other countries in complete defiance of the UN. One more example of how the UN is a waste of time. Much like replying to your post.
<hr /></blockquote>

Uh oh, mr.oblivious once again spews incredible misinformation. Actually I am quite disgusted with you now.

Please enjoy:

The sanctions imposed on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait in 1990 have led to widespread civilian suffering and are unpopular in Arab countries.

Huge increases in the costs of basic foodstuffs and the collapse of the Iraqi dinar have resulted in unrest, particularly after the decision in September 1994 to halve the basic ration issued to all Iraqis. Begging and criminal activity are now widespread."

Despite such problems, analysts say the economy could recover fairly quickly if sanctions were lifted.

Iraq delayed approval of the oil-for-food programme for four years. It was not until December 1996 that the programme was launched.

Under UN resolution 986, known as the oil-for-food programme, Iraq was allowed to sell $2bn of oil every six months to buy food and medicine. It took effect in December 1996.


Oil sales and market
A number of foreign companies have been in talks on investing in Iraq. Companies from Canada, China, Russia and France have all been involved. Some have come to statements of "understanding" with Iraq, although these will only take effect after the UN sanctions have been lifted. The companies want to secure contractual rights to major oil fields.

The UN embargo prevents any investment in Iraq and the unauthorised export of Iraqi oil.

<font color="red"> Iraq's strategy has been to use foreign oil deals to try to increase pressure to end sanctions. </font color>

The stop-start nature of UN monitored Iraqi oil exports also adds volatility to the world oil market, especially as Iraqi exports are based on a value, rather than a volume target of a certain number of barrels.

Source:BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/road_to_the_brink/146508.stm

I'm a bleeding liberal? I'm neither bleeding nor liberal, I just choose to be informed. You choose to be ignorant and oblivious, have fun. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

eg8r
02-11-2004, 09:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> The war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, until now <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Until now? I don't think you even want to debate intelligently, you just want to argue.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> Press Conference at the White House on 31 January 2003. Here's the key portion:

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

George W. Bush: I can't make that claim.

Tony Blair: That answers your question.

I suppose you haven't heard of this, eg8r. For some reason, the media hasn't said much of it.
Here is a link to the transcript of the entire conference:

<hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote> Looks like arguing to me. You were able to find one single quote in which Bush was answering on tipee toes. If was to come out and say "yes" then people like you would now be calling him a liar. Nothing has been proven yet that there were no terrorist links, however you are jumping on the bandwagon and blindly believing the media that there definitely, positively were no chance of a link. Sorry but that is ignorant, especially after the news yesterday. Once again, all you want to do is argue.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> Now our troops are dying every day because of terrorists. Most of the terrorists are ones who infilitrated the country. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Are you saying there are terrorists in Iraq? Which country are you talking about?
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> Either you are acting like the oblivious fool, or you really are one.

Washington -- Nineteen al-Qaida terrorists are among some 248 foreign fighters that have been captured by U.S. forces after infiltrating Iraq, says Ambassador Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq."
source:
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> In answer to whether I am oblivious, I guess not. In my reply to your first comment I was being sarcastic. On one hand you say there are no Iraqi ties to the terrorists, on the other hand you are saying there are ties. Which is it. My question as to which country was sarcastic in nature also, meaning there is no way you would be talking about Al Qaeda in Iraq, you were positive there were no links. Why would they be there helping out Saddam if there were NO ties? This is where your argument and Q's arguments make no sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Umm, I quoted you talking about North Korea in my last post, genius.
<hr /></blockquote> You are right. I mentioned one bullet that you brought originally. Once again, you were talking to yourself when you mentioned North Korea was more of a threat. The original thread had nothing to do with levels of threat or other countries that might threaten the US, however you decided that should be subject matter in a completely unrelated thread. This thread was about France and Russia secretly, under the nose of the UN, buying barrels of oil. You so intelligently stated that North Korea was more of a threat. LOL, once again you just want to argue. If you want to talk about NK then start a thread about it. However when you bring up something unrelated to the subject matter and you are called on it, don't act like a fool and drop to petty arguing.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>Funny you say this, because wasn't Bush just so sure that Saddam had links to Osama? <font color="blue"> I wanted to interject here for a moment, at the beginning of this reply, I have a quote of you quoting some reference from 01/2003 with Bush stating exactly the opposite. Ok, back to the numbness of your posts </font color> When Osama isn't caught, and we invade another country to make us forget about him, what are you gonna say then?
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Is there anything in our past to prove that we might just do that. More stupidity. I am not playing an "if" game with you, it is childish<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> Hmm, invading other countries for suspicious (as they were projected) reasons, lets think for a second. Ah yes, here you go: Gulf War I, Gulf War II, The US Invasion of Greneda, The US Invasion of Panama, is that enough for you? Don't get me started on the last two I mentioned, if you know anything about them.
<hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote> It might be easier for you to think your answers through if you copy everything starting with your quote in which I replied, this way you might be able to understand what I said. Given the quotes above, are we to believe you in that the Gulf War was an attack on Iraq in a effort of the government to make the US citizens forget about Osama (let alone the other conflicts you looked up in your encyclopedia). It is obvious that you never even looked at what you said before you made a reply to what I said. Like I said, pure stupidity. If you have forgotten that Saddam admitted to having WMDs, and you forget that he was using them against his own people, then it is obvious you either have a bad memory, choose to ignore facts, or just plain ignorant. If you think this entire war is about WMDs then the same could be said again. Don't forget about all the innocent people he slaughtered in the almighty name of genocide.

[ QUOTE ]
What I said comes from my father, a US Army Veteran and former POW of WWII. I am in my 20's, my father is now 81. It's different having such an old father, but I learned alot from him. He wasn't drafted, he volunteered, telling the recruiter to make sure he went to the front lines. He was captured by the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge in 1945, and was a POW for 5 months. After surviving the bloodiest ground battle for the US in Europe, and enduring starvation and sickness as a POW, I am confident he can define what a "Just War" is.
<hr /></blockquote> Tell your father thank you for fighting for us. The soldiers that are over there fighting for us right now are quite thankful also. If it was not for your father going into battle to defend the nation (just like our soldiers are doing right now) then none of our soldiers right now would be liberating all of those thankful Iraqis.

[ QUOTE ]
The war has turned into an occupation, just like I implied. <hr /></blockquote> The war did not turn into anything. The war ended. Should we have just left Germany and Japan alone when we were done demolishing them? Why should the weight and barren of debt of the fallen dictator be laid upon the shoulders of the innocent civilians of Iraq? Is it their fault we had to come over and bomb the crap out of their country? We are there rebuilding and helping them start a government for themselves. If occupation is what you want to call it, the so be it, but to those people in Iraq, it is a new fresh start.

[ QUOTE ]
Here you go on the oil issue:

Ever heard of Paul O'Neill? He was George Bush's former Treasury Secretary. He was in charge of everything that had to do with economics in the White House. He was fired a year ago for disagreeing too many times with the President. O'Neill was the main source of a new book, entitled "The Price of Loyalty", written by Ron Suskind.

Quoted by O'Neill: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

More stuff: Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.
<hr /></blockquote> It is funny to see who you find comfort with. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Did you jump on the bandwagon when Clinton was firing people and believe everything they said? Yeah, I guess not.
[ QUOTE ]
Here you go on the oil issue:

Ever heard of Paul O'Neill? He was George Bush's former Treasury Secretary. He was in charge of everything that had to do with economics in the White House. He was fired a year ago for disagreeing too many times with the President. O'Neill was the main source of a new book, entitled "The Price of Loyalty", written by Ron Suskind.

Quoted by O'Neill: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. <hr /></blockquote>
In the first quote you used in an effort to bolster your idea you completely fail it had nothing to do with oil, but rather to get rid of an evil man. I believe Clinton and Bush Sr. both had the same thoughts, we are not sorry W is more of a man and was able to carry through with it.

[ QUOTE ]
More stuff: Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.
<hr /></blockquote> Here is the second quote...Do you know what is happening with the money from the oil right now? Is W profiting from the sale of oil? Surely you have proof that he is, since that is the only reason you feel we went to war with Iraq.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> On top of all the killing, he was enjoying tremendous financial gains over the sale of oil to other countries in complete defiance of the UN. One more example of how the UN is a waste of time. Much like replying to your post.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> Uh oh, mr.oblivious once again spews incredible misinformation. Actually I am quite disgusted with you now.

<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> The mis-information, as you like to call it, is located in the opening post to this thread. I wonder if you read it, or decided to jump up on your soapbox. Go back and read it again. No where did I say all the oil sold was in defiance of the UN, just all the extra oil in which the profits were being kept by Hussein. Once again, go read the article I posted and reply then.

Disgusted with me....LOLOLOL I guess you wanted a 'yes' man, sorry that is not me.

It is funny, my liberal professors had the same arguments and were, just as yourself, disgusted (I even had a law professor argue with me that blacks were illegally kept away from the voting booths back when Bush won. I asked him where are all the lawsuits and he said they were pending. To this day, not one single black person has sued the state of Florida for having his voting rights withheld. You liberal people believe everything the liberal media and talking heads say).

I do not fall into the little liberal pool of nonsense. If Liberals had an ounce of credibility, then why is the entire Democratic side of politics crumbling. Even the mighty inventor of the Internet, Al Gore, could not get his radio station going, and he bought up everything except the radio towers. You have morons running around the country trying to become the next Dem candidate and the only fool doing anything is some haughty French looking man, who by the way served in Vietnam (correctly labeled originally by those at the Wall Street Journal), gaining any groud.

If your facts stood on solid ground, why do they dwindle away in our news media which is absolutely liberally dominated? Life is a lot different when you stumble out of your college classroom and enter the real world. I have only been out here a little while and it is getting clearer everyday.

eg8r

Dagwood
02-11-2004, 10:43 AM
media propoganda...hurting...eyes...blinding me...can't see...must...close...window....GAHHHHHH!

nhp
02-12-2004, 03:11 AM
Just before I reply, I thought you should finally realize something that everybody knows about: THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS CONSERVATIVE.
This is why:
Myth: The U.S. has a liberal media.

Fact: The media are being increasingly monopolized by parent corporations with pro-corporate or conservative agendas.

Conservatives often promote the myth that the U.S. media are liberal. This myth serves several purposes: it raises public skepticism about liberal news stories, hides conservative bias when it appears, and goads the media to the right. GOP strategist William Kristol also reveals another reason: "I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." (1)

In unguarded moments, however, even far-right figures like Pat Buchanan come clean: "The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive." He further conceded: "I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked… For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that."
source:http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

Global Media Giants = Corporate Media (conservative, not liberal)
read all about this at:http://betterworldlinks.org/book24n.htm

It's a myth. The liberal media holds no power in the media alone. All of the large media corporations have conservative intentions.

I don't really understand how you come up with all of these ideas. First, everything that I give you proof of, you flatly reject, and give me some more B.S., and you don't even have sources for it. Second, it is a common knowledge of any liberal or non-conservative that the corporate media world leans to the right. You tell me replying to my post is a waste of time, yet you take the time to twist my words around and forget about key points I made that already answered your new arguments:
[ QUOTE ]
Nothing has been proven yet that there were no terrorist links, however you are jumping on the bandwagon and blindly believing the media that there definitely, positively were no chance of a link. <hr /></blockquote>
when I had already said:
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> I suppose you haven't heard of this, eg8r. For some reason, the media hasn't said much of it. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>
which means: That quote from George W. was extremely hard to find, I was implying that the media has been hesitant to publicize that George W. denied the links. Aside from that, haven't you read the news today? Colin Powell even said that if he knew then what he knows now about no links between Saddam and 9/11, he would have said NO to the war.

[ QUOTE ]
In answer to whether I am oblivious, I guess not. In my reply to your first comment I was being sarcastic. On one hand you say there are no Iraqi ties to the terrorists, on the other hand you are saying there are ties. Which is it. My question as to which country was sarcastic in nature also, meaning there is no way you would be talking about Al Qaeda in Iraq, you were positive there were no links. Why would they be there helping out Saddam if there were NO ties? This is where your argument and Q's arguments make no sense. <hr /></blockquote>

I am saying the same exact thing that Colin Powell just said, there is no evidence linking Saddam to the terrorists.
There are terrorists INFILTRATING (you must have forgot) Iraq, you know, Anti-U.S. terrorists, Islamic extremists, they believe it is their calling to keep Americans off of arab soil. There are terrorists in every country, especially arab countries, and being that Iraq is surrounded by arab countries, the terrorists are coming in to Iraq to make the US occupation of Iraq a living hell. It's really annoying that I have to explain such logical things to you, when you argue you like to twist my words around to make it seem like I was saying something different. Pathetic.

[ QUOTE ]
You are right. I mentioned one bullet that you brought originally. Once again, you were talking to yourself when you mentioned North Korea was more of a threat. <hr /></blockquote>

No. I gave a short list of reasons why I am against the invasion of Iraq. You replied to it, therefore you started talking to me about it. I replied back to you, therefore I was talking to you. You were right, this is getting stupid, thanks to you.

[ QUOTE ]
However when you bring up something unrelated to the subject matter and you are called on it, don't act like a fool and drop to petty arguing. <hr /></blockquote>

That was pretty stupid too, so I had to quote you on it, being that you called me stupid. What I said was related to the subject matter of * my *, yes my opinions on why I am against the invasion of Iraq. The topic of this thread is "why france and russia were against the invasion of Iraq", I made a small list of reasons why *I* am against the invasion, making it related to the subject matter, thus making one of the reasons I listed related to the subject matter. More word-twisting from you, even more pathetic.

[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to interject here for a moment, at the beginning of this reply, I have a quote of you quoting some reference from 01/2003 with Bush stating exactly the opposite. Ok, back to the numbness of your posts <hr /></blockquote>

LOL even more twisting, this is just sad now. Let me explain this in your language so you can hopefully understand it:

duh, before war bush say saddam an osama are friend so bush can attack saddam then after war bush say he have no evidence that saddam an osama are friend, and so do colin powell.

Am I clear?

I gotta go, I'll finish picking you apart later tonight. Take care.

nhp
02-12-2004, 06:51 AM
Cont.

[ QUOTE ]
are we to believe you in that the Gulf War was an attack on Iraq in a effort of the government to make the US citizens forget about Osama <hr /></blockquote>

You should rephrase that into "am *I* to believe the *obvious* that *one* of the reasons Gulf War II took place was to make US citizens forget about Osama?"

[ QUOTE ]
If you have forgotten that Saddam admitted to having WMDs, and you forget that he was using them against his own people, <hr /></blockquote>

You have forgotten to mention when that took place. Long before Gulf War II. Saddam claimed he had no WMD's when we were threatening to invade right before Gulf War II. He said he'd gotten rid of them because of the first Gulf War.

[ QUOTE ]
It is obvious that you never even looked at what you said before you made a reply to what I said. Like I said, pure stupidity. <hr /></blockquote>

Let my make my point once again. It was you who did not understand what I said. Bush used the terrorist link as a ploy for one of his reasons for invading. Get it? All that CIA crap, it was all nonsense. If we were really interested in Saddam having a link to Osama, don't you think the CIA would have made sure they had concrete evidence before they gave information to Bush, being that the credibility of the most powerful man in the world is on the line? Of course they would have. Logically this tells people with brains that Bush made up that falsified evidence of links before his State of the Union Adress before the war. Bush was extremely confident that after gutting Iraq they could figure out a way to make all of his assumptions come true. That didn't happen, and now the CIA is Bush's scapegoat for taking the blame.
Get it?

[ QUOTE ]
We are there rebuilding and helping them start a government for themselves. If occupation is what you want to call it, the so be it, but to those people in Iraq, it is a new fresh start.
<hr /></blockquote>

You are a victim of the conservative media. We are placing people as leaders of Iraq to benefit us, with, you know, oil, to make it simple for you.

On a brighter note, if this mess can get straightened out, even with new people in charge who are there solely to benefit the United States, at least Saddam and his sons won't be there anymore raping and murdering people. That is about the only good that will come out of this war. If the sole reason for invading Iraq was because of that, I would not support it. There are brutal governments all over the world. In Lebanon, there is one law that if a virgin gets raped by any man, she must be executed, because she is no longer pure. There was one case that this happened, where the rapist himself got a mere slap on the wrist compared to what happened to the woman.

[ QUOTE ]
In the first quote you used in an effort to bolster your idea you completely fail it had nothing to do with oil, but rather to get rid of an evil man. I believe Clinton and Bush Sr. both had the same thoughts, we are not sorry W is more of a man and was able to carry through with it. <hr /></blockquote>

That sir, was just extra sauce on the meat. You intentionally left out the big juicy parts that I posted:

The reason that oil plays a part in any future conflict with Iraq has to do with the amount of oil available on the free market. On the free market, whenever there is an increase in supply of a product, the price of that product generally decreases. Such is the hope of the Bush administration with regard to the price of oil should they remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Currently, Iraq is allowed to export some 2 million barrels of oil per day (bpd), which finds its way into the global marketplace; shortly after the Gulf War, Iraq's oil exports were restricted as part of the United Nations oil-for-food program. Before the Gulf War began, Iraq was exporting 3.5 million bpd, meaning at least another 1.5 million barrels of oil were being released into the global marketplace each day as compared with 2 million bpd now. If Iraq were to once again rise to that level of exports, there would be more oil supply in the global market and this would cause a drop in oil prices.


The only way for Iraq to once again export 3.5 million bpd will be for the United Nations sanctions to end. Once the sanctions end, Iraq will be able to export oil at their full capacity as they did before the Gulf War. Because the United States and Britain believe strongly that the sanctions should remain in place until Saddam Hussein is removed from power, they have looked for other solutions to solve this problem of high oil prices. The Bush administration decided the sanctions were not succeeding in removing Hussein and it was time they just removed him themselves, putting their own friendly government into power and thus putting an end to the need for sanctions.

"Why indulge North Korea while scourging Iraq? First, oil. Iraq’s oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia. Considering that the Bush administration has embarked on a long-term campaign militarily to dominate and exploit the oil of Central Asia’s Caspian Basin, it is not a stretch of imagination to believe that control of the more proximate oil of Iraq is also high on the administration’s petro-agenda."

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know what is happening with the money from the oil right now? Is W profiting from the sale of oil? Surely you have proof that he is, since that is the only reason you feel we went to war with Iraq.
<hr /></blockquote>

Don't expect any of this to happen until Iraq is stable, so there is no need to question what is happening with oil at this moment.

[ QUOTE ]
No where did I say all the oil sold was in defiance of the UN, just all the extra oil in which the profits were being kept by Hussein. Once again, go read the article I posted and reply then. <hr /></blockquote>

Here are your own words:

[ QUOTE ]
he was enjoying tremendous financial gains over the sale of oil to other countries in complete defiance of the UN. <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
It is funny, my liberal professors had the same arguments and were, just as yourself, disgusted (I even had a law professor argue with me that blacks were illegally kept away from the voting booths back when Bush won. I asked him where are all the lawsuits and he said they were pending. To this day, not one single black person has sued the state of Florida for having his voting rights withheld. You liberal people believe everything the liberal media and talking heads say). <hr /></blockquote>

You neanderthal, there have been lawsuits.

More often than not in America, the prisoner's colour is black. Because of the way DBT generated the list, every genuine black felon in the United States could knock out every black voter in Florida with the same surname and similar date of birth. That's why the NAACP is suing Florida for violating voters' civil rights.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1174115.stm

[ QUOTE ]
If your facts stood on solid ground, why do they dwindle away in our news media which is absolutely liberally dominated? Life is a lot different when you stumble out of your college classroom and enter the real world. I have only been out here a little while and it is getting clearer everyday. <hr /></blockquote>

Now that you know that the "liberal media" is a myth, things should be making more sense.

You first set foot out into the real world when you attempt to find the truth. You accuse me of blindly believing liberal nonsense, yet you sit there and blindly believe conservative nonsense. I have a one and only blind belief, that's in God. Everything else I believe I learned for myself, by searching for the truth. Do you see the hypocrisy in you now? I search for knowledge, you do not.

It was not my liberal teachers at my school that changed the way I think. When this war first started I was pro-Bush, I liked him alot. After paying attention to the news everyday, reading Newsweek and Time, and countless other magazines constantly, I started to realize that many things about this war did not add up. I started listening to what other people had to say, and I did some searching on my own. Low and behold, look at what I believe now. I searched for it, I found it.

You have yet to set foot in the real world, sir. Get your fat ass out of your chair and quit accusing others of "blindly believing" something when you do exactly that.

eg8r
02-12-2004, 07:44 AM
After reading two consecutive posts I have noticed one thing...too much info and you blow up. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif You needed to split it up into two different posts to make it easier on you to keep up.

As far as conservative media, go watch CNN, CSPAN, ABC, CBS or NBC. Just because these companies are owned by large corporations does not have anything to do with the fact that they run very liberal programs. You mentioned it was hard to find instances of Bush denying ties of terrorists with Iraq, and blaming that on the Conservative media, did it ever occur to you that the liberals might have dropped that argument when they noticed it had no merit? This happens all the time and is why Q comes here and whines every once in a while.

You are right, I have wasted my time replying to you. I did not twist anything you said, what I did was repost it so that you could read your dribble again. It appeared that when you were replying to me, you were forgetting what you already said prior. I guess this is where this post ends.....

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
02-12-2004, 08:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>...Myth: The U.S. has a liberal media....<hr /></blockquote>

Thanks for the laugh.

Let me tell something and this is the truth...when I was 11 years old (1968), before Limbaugh and before the internet and before Fox News, I noticed the blatant liberal slant of the media. It was not even talked about back then, except maybe by Ronald Reagan, but it was all too obvious.

Believe it or not.

I have a feeling your mind is already made up. Wait till you start paying $10,000 freaking dollars a year in income taxes young nhp. You'll start whistling a different tune.

Qtec
02-12-2004, 10:07 AM
You are banging your head against the wall trying to convice either eg8r or Wally. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

eg8r
02-12-2004, 10:15 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You are banging your head against the wall trying to convice either eg8r or Wally. <hr /></blockquote> Q to the rescue. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I was just trying to think back to a single instance in which Q has ever accepted someone elses ideas. While sitting there typing this you somehow have lied to yourself by thinking that you have been even the slightest bit open minded and willing to hear the other side.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
02-12-2004, 10:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> You are banging your head against the wall trying to convice either eg8r or Wally. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Correct. Because I think and observe.

cheesemouse
02-12-2004, 12:50 PM
Wally,

I tried to stay out of this one but I think you have a hitch in your get-a-long in regards to paying taxes. You should be happy you live in a country that leaves you free to make enough money to pay $10k in taxes. What you should be pi$$ed about is that there are hundreds of large corporations making millions upon millions and paying less in taxes than you. Being mad about that would be most helpful. Do you suppose if those same corporations paid taxes in the same proportion that you do perhaps your tax bill could go down.....Daaaaaaa

Wally_in_Cincy
02-12-2004, 01:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> Wally,

I tried to stay out of this one but I think you have a hitch in your get-a-long in regards to paying taxes. You should be happy you live in a country that leaves you free to make enough money to pay $10k in taxes.

<font color="blue">I am happy about that. I am unhappy about the government flushing my money down the toilet. </font color>


What you should be pi$$ed about is that there are hundreds of large corporations making millions upon millions and paying less in taxes than you.

<font color="blue">I don't know. I don't have any figures. </font color>

Being mad about that would be most helpful. Do you suppose if those same corporations paid taxes in the same proportion that you do perhaps your tax bill could go down

<font color="blue">Probably not. </font color>


.....Daaaaaaa <hr /></blockquote>

Dagwood
02-12-2004, 02:36 PM
Man, and I was lookign forward to seeing who would win the competition for longest post via cutting and pasting...right now eg8r has the lead....

Dags

eg8r
02-12-2004, 03:53 PM
LOL, go back through the history here, there is a lot of cutting and pasting. It is good to remind them what they said prior so the sordid tale they tell does not get any more far fetched. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

nhp
02-13-2004, 06:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
After reading two consecutive posts I have noticed one thing...too much info and you blow up. You needed to split it up into two different posts to make it easier on you to keep up. <hr /></blockquote>

Actually I went out for a bit, I didn't have time to finish, so I finished later. Notice the time difference.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as conservative media, go watch CNN, CSPAN, ABC, CBS or NBC. Just because these companies are owned by large corporations does not have anything to do with the fact that they run very liberal programs. <hr /></blockquote>

Blah blah, whatever. I gave you a quote from mr. right-wing himself, Pat Buchanan admitting that the media is conservative. How are you and Wally going to argue with that?

[ QUOTE ]
did it ever occur to you that the liberals might have dropped that argument when they noticed it had no merit? <hr /></blockquote>

Please explain. How would a liberal figure that Bush admitting there is no evidence of a link between Saddam and Osama has no merit, and therefore should be kept secret? That right there would be a gimme in an argument between a liberal and a conservative about the war.

[ QUOTE ]
You are right, I have wasted my time replying to you. I did not twist anything you said, what I did was repost it so that you could read your dribble again. It appeared that when you were replying to me, you were forgetting what you already said prior. <hr /></blockquote>

I gave you a very in-depth explanation of everything, even how you tried to make it seem like I said different things than what I did actually say. That's what I meant by word twisting.

Instead of just muttering lame remarks about certain arguments I've already tackled and won, why don't you just try to listen for once. I don't get how you and Wally consider yourselves open-minded when you both sit there and do the same exact things that both liberals and conservatives alike do, you refuse to listen to anything, thinking you know everything.

What you don't seem to get is I've already listened to everything. Like I said, before the war I was pro-Bush, I thought the same way as you. I did some searching on my own, and found out things that changed my mind. I wasn't coaxed into believing this stuff because of a liberal professor, I found out all this stuff before I took certain courses which had liberal professors.



All of my arguments, every single one (with the exception of my retorts to your childish insults) I gave you in-depth information, and explanations of everything. For everything that you said I did not read what I wrote, I took the time to explain to you what I was talking about so that it could make more sense to you. You call what I posted dribble? All you have been writing is nothing but dribble. You never give sources, just some bold assumptions. What's the deal with you guys?

Wally_in_Cincy
02-13-2004, 07:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
...Blah blah, whatever. I gave you a quote from mr. right-wing himself, Pat Buchanan admitting that the media is conservative. How are you and Wally going to argue with that? ...<hr /></blockquote>

It's very simple. I have watched it before my very eyes for 36 years.

nhp
02-13-2004, 09:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>
...Blah blah, whatever. I gave you a quote from mr. right-wing himself, Pat Buchanan admitting that the media is conservative. How are you and Wally going to argue with that? ...<hr /></blockquote>

It's very simple. I have watched it before my very eyes for 36 years. <hr /></blockquote>

lol I'm sorry but I just can't take your word for it over a model conservative who actually admits it...lol thank YOU for the laugh.

So you noticed the media was liberal at age 11 huh? You must have been one strange kid. At that age all I cared about was WWF Wrestling and girls.

cheesemouse
02-13-2004, 10:25 AM
nhp,

Kripes nhp..., I had an image of Wally in my mind, but it never included him in short pants, a bowtie, and thick glassed at the young age of 11 sitting at the edge of the play ground reading a book instead of playing kickball.......HAHAHA...... /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

I can smell the brain cells smoking..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
02-13-2004, 10:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>....So you noticed the media was liberal at age 11 huh? You must have been one strange kid....<hr /></blockquote>

Not really. I just paid attention to things.

Wally_in_Cincy
02-13-2004, 10:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> .., I had an image of Wally in my mind, but it never included him in short pants, a bowtie, and thick glassed at the young age of 11 sitting at the edge of the play ground reading a book instead of playing kickball....... <hr /></blockquote>

Not even close. Try again.

I did read books at that age so you're right about that part.

cheesemouse
02-13-2004, 11:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"try again"<hr /></blockquote>

Well, OK then....

The new image replaced one of you chasing the little girls around the May Pole trying to get a sneak peek at their frilly pants....hey, Wally, you asked....


In the future it would be advisable not to give those soft ball pitches.../ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
02-13-2004, 11:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> ..chasing the little girls around the May Pole trying to get a sneak peek at their frilly pants.... <hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Much better. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Still doing that but the girls are older and I'm slower.

Plus I can't run too fast or I'll spill my beer.