PDA

View Full Version : "You're either with us or against us"



nhp
03-31-2004, 10:42 PM
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-- Theodore Roosevelt

Wally_in_Cincy
04-01-2004, 07:19 AM
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

~ Teddy Roosevelt

nhp
04-01-2004, 10:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

~ Teddy Roosevelt <hr /></blockquote>

You should not use that great quote to support a one-sided war inspired by greed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."


-Albert Einstein

Wally_in_Cincy
04-01-2004, 10:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>You should not use that great quote to support a one-sided war inspired by greed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<hr /></blockquote>

one-sided? would you prefer a more even matchup?

Greed? Oil for Bush's friends? Is that what you are saying?

bigshooter
04-01-2004, 01:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

~ Teddy Roosevelt <hr /></blockquote>

You should not use that great quote to support a one-sided war inspired by greed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."


-Albert Einstein <hr /></blockquote>

I'm greedy.

Greedy to see a brutal dictator taken out of power and his rape rooms and torture chambers shut down.

Greedy for one of terrorism's best allies and financial supporter to be put on trial for his crimes against the world.

Greedy for Iraqi children to be able to live without fear of being tortured while their parents are forced to watch.

Greedy for the Iraqi people to experience the kind of freedom that American's take for granted everyday.

I AM GREEDY!

nAz
04-01-2004, 02:12 PM
I agree we should go into Uganda, libyria, rwanda, North korea and cuba? err wait there is no oil there my bad.

bigshooter
04-01-2004, 03:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> I agree we should go into Uganda, libyria, rwanda, North korea and cuba? err wait there is no oil there my bad. <hr /></blockquote>

If all we want is oil then lets invade Alaska and simply free our own oil then those Iraqi's wouldn't have to put up with the byproduct of our obvious greed like freedom and democracy, I'm sure they would rather keep their oil and be slaves to Saddam the rest of their lives.

Of course we didn't take their oil from them last time and we wont take it this time but even if we did it would be a small price for them to pay and I'm sure they would be glad to pay it.

Wally_in_Cincy
04-01-2004, 03:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bigshooter:</font><hr>..... If all we want is oil then lets invade Alaska and simply free our own oil....<hr /></blockquote>

Are you kidding? And risk a caribou insurgency? Not me dude. Make love not war

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/peacesign.jpg

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

nhp
04-01-2004, 04:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
one-sided? would you prefer a more even matchup?

Greed? Oil for Bush's friends? Is that what you are saying? <hr /></blockquote>

Prefer an even match up? How about I would support a war with a just reason to either start or enter it? The only braveness and heroism taking place in Gulf War II is by that of the soldiers, not those who support it.

Stop acting like you are innocent to the knowledge of oil playing a main part in us starting the war.

nhp
04-01-2004, 04:16 PM
I'm greedy.

Greedy to see a brutal dictator taken out of power and his rape rooms and torture chambers shut down.
<font color="blue"> There are much worse scenarios going on in other countries that we won't touch, more than likely because those countries yield no benefits we can reap </font color>

Greedy for one of terrorism's best allies and financial supporter to be put on trial for his crimes against the world.
<font color="blue">In case you have been asleep for the last few months, Bush has already retracted his accusations of Saddam being linked to terrorists, in fact, he made a public flat rejection of any connection between Saddam and terrorists. </font color>

Greedy for Iraqi children to be able to live without fear of being tortured while their parents are forced to watch.
<font color="blue"> Never heard of this, where did you get that from? </font color>
Greedy for the Iraqi people to experience the kind of freedom that American's take for granted everyday.
<font color="blue"> Freedom to brutally murder American civilians and soldiers, and then to put on a gruesome display of the bodies? Wake up! The media has put a veil over your eyes. Do you think this type of sentiment towards Americans is only in that specific part of Iraq? It's ALL over! The only Iraqis who support the Americans are the minority sects who were opposed to Saddam. If nearly all of Iraq was thankful for this "freedom" (more like death and destruction), do you really see a reason for these guerilla warfare style attacks to be able to take place, without WARNING, notification, or an attempt to sabotage the plans? WAKE UP BUDDY! </font color>

I AM GREEDY!
<font color="blue"> No, you're just ignorant. </font color>

bigshooter
04-01-2004, 05:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> I'm greedy.

Greedy to see a brutal dictator taken out of power and his rape rooms and torture chambers shut down.
<font color="blue"> There are much worse scenarios going on in other countries that we won't touch, more than likely because those countries yield no benefits we can reap </font color>

Greedy for one of terrorism's best allies and financial supporter to be put on trial for his crimes against the world.
<font color="blue">In case you have been asleep for the last few months, Bush has already retracted his accusations of Saddam being linked to terrorists, in fact, he made a public flat rejection of any connection between Saddam and terrorists. </font color>

Greedy for Iraqi children to be able to live without fear of being tortured while their parents are forced to watch.
<font color="blue"> Never heard of this, where did you get that from? </font color>
Greedy for the Iraqi people to experience the kind of freedom that American's take for granted everyday.
<font color="blue"> Freedom to brutally murder American civilians and soldiers, and then to put on a gruesome display of the bodies? Wake up! The media has put a veil over your eyes. Do you think this type of sentiment towards Americans is only in that specific part of Iraq? It's ALL over! The only Iraqis who support the Americans are the minority sects who were opposed to Saddam. If nearly all of Iraq was thankful for this "freedom" (more like death and destruction), do you really see a reason for these guerilla warfare style attacks to be able to take place, without WARNING, notification, or an attempt to sabotage the plans? WAKE UP BUDDY! </font color>

I AM GREEDY!
<font color="blue"> No, you're just ignorant. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

All we are saying... is give peace a chance.

http://dc.indymedia.org/usermedia/image/12/56013.jpg

Wow it sounds like you are really angry, I hope you didn't spill your bongwater. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

bigshooter
04-01-2004, 05:37 PM
Iraq produces between 3% and 5% of the world's daily oil supply on any given day.

To put that in perspective, of the ten largest oil producing countries on the planet, Iraq ranks 7th. Saudi Arabia ranks 1st producing 500% more oil than Iraq. Number two is Mexico... three is Venezuela.

"Yeah, but... but... Iraq has the second largest oil reserve under it!"

If you have a quarter, I have a dime, and everyone else on earth has a nickel... I have the second largest coin on earth. But it's still a drop in the bucket compared to what's out there.

"Well...um.... but what is there is still worth a lot of money!"

Is it? There's an estimate that says that the oil in the sands of Iraq is worth $3trillion dollars.

Problem 1: getting to the oil. Iraq is producing 4% of the oil because that's all it can get at. If that oil were easily obtained, Iraq would've already tapped it. In order to even think about draining the untapped oil, infrastructure, technology, and machinery would have to be built, invented and installed. That costs money. That takes time.

Problem 2: refineries all ready at full capacity. The oil refineries around the world are already at full capacity. They are already maxed out as to how much oil they can take in and turn into gasoline and fuels. There's just no more room for more oil to go into them.

So if you tapped Iraq and drained all that oil, it'd sit in storage until the refineries can get to it... which costs money... But the refineries wouldn't ever get to it, because oil from other reserves needs to be refined too. Some all that excess oil would sit in storage indefinitely. That costs money. It sure as heck doesn't make money sitting in storage.

One option would be to build more refineries. Building refineries costs money. Plus, the environmental movement in the US is preventing any more refineries from being built. If the refineries are built in foreign countries, it would cost more money to run them and ship the fuels to their destinations. Plus, you'd be splitting taxes and would probably have to negotiate tariff deals.

Problem 3: Too much oil supply reduces prices. If you drained the oil, built more refineries, and released a couple billion barrels of oil out into the marketplace, you dramatically increase supply. Anyone who's taken a basic economics course knows that if supply goes up and demand stays the same, prices drop. That $3trillion quickly become $1trillion.... cutting into profits. So the cost of infrastructure, the cost of technology, the cost of machinery, the cost of refineries, the cost of shipping, the cost of tariffs, and the reducing of oil prices nets about 4% per year over 28 years. You can do better with T-Bills.

ADD to that the cost of cleaning up after a war.

And now the time factor. Time to clean up, time to build roads and infrastructure, time to develop technology, time to build machinery, time to ship and install machinery, time to build refineries, time for negotiating international tariff deals, time for refining, time for transport... all without a significant increase in demand.... By the time all that is done we could be driving H-cell cars by then.

My point is that if you want to get rich on oil, Iraq is not the place to do it. There are a dozen better options. If you're going to use war as a method for obtaining oil, let's go after Venezuela... they're ripe for a takeover right now and produce over 300% more oil than Iraq. Better yet, let's annex Mexico. Even better yet, let's take over Saudi Arabia...we already have military bases there.

If we really wanted more oil, we'd just lift the sanction on Iraq and buy it... at a cheaper cost and in less time than going through the hassle of everything listed above. But then you run into the full capacity and supply and demand issues. If this were really about oil, we would've kept troops in Iraq in 1991. It doesn't make economic sense. It would lose money.... especially in the short-term... meaning stock prices would fall. That's something no investor wants, especially in the short-term. The only oil factor in this equation is that the money Iraq DOES make from legal and illegal oil sales is going into producing weapons, golden palaces, and probably to terrorist groups.... hence the reason Saddam says he doesn't have enough money to feed his people and why they're starving to death in the streets while cheering his name. He spends the money on military and not on children. If a new Iraqi regime were in control of their oil, maybe the money would go towards schools, and food, and medicine, instead of towards anthrax, vx gas, aluminum tubes, and al-shamud missiles. The "War for Oil" line is without basis and just plain wrong. It's a "sound good" line perpetuated by the left and those people that are wishing for an ulterior motive because they just can't believe that Bush isn't lying. But as soon as you start to think about it rationally, like in this article, you see that the "War for Oil" line has no merit whatsoever.

nhp
04-01-2004, 07:12 PM
In response to your above post, please read and enjoy /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Oh, before you start, read this quote from what you are about to read first :

But in order to learn, you need to explore this information with an open mind. Too many people, on either side of the argument, form an opinion that they will defend irrationally. Read this, take in the data, and if you learn something new, apply it accordingly.

READ WITH AN OPEN MIND PLEASE

http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/

bigshooter
04-01-2004, 07:36 PM
O.K. I read it all and I have to say I don't agree with most of it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
But at least you defend what you believe and I have to give you that, I meet a lot of people that refuse to stand up for what they believe in or even worse don't believe in anything which disturbs me beyond belief.
We will probably not see eye to eye politically but hey you can't be all bad if your hanging out on a pool players forum.
Blessings. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
04-02-2004, 07:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
In case you have been asleep for the last few months, Bush has already retracted his accusations of Saddam being linked to terrorists, in fact, he made a public flat rejection of any connection between Saddam and terrorists.
<hr /></blockquote> When did he do this? Saddam was very public about paying the homicide bomber's families. I would think if he was in with the Palestinian terrorists he would surely have dabbled a little in Al Qaeda.

eg8r

eg8r
04-02-2004, 07:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
READ WITH AN OPEN MIND PLEASE
<hr /></blockquote> Practice what you preach...

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
04-02-2004, 07:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> ...Stop acting like you are innocent to the knowledge of oil playing a main part in us starting the war. <hr /></blockquote>

Don't tell me what to do.

Reasons for war:

1. It was a legal action because Saddam did not abide by the cease-fire agreement of 1991 and the 17 UN resolutions.

2. He had WMD. Have you seen the films of the gassed Kurdish children? He was crazy enough to do anything, including supplying WMD to al-quaida. Bush, after what happened on 9/11, did not want to wake up to a gas attack in Grand Central Station.

3. It was a chance to free 25 million people and maybe, just maybe, plant the seed of democracy in that region.

eg8r
04-02-2004, 08:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
He had WMD. Have you seen the films of the gassed Kurdish children? <hr /></blockquote> nhp does not care about that because he feels there might be other countries doing worse. This is not a matter of fixing the worse first, but rather fixing most things as we move along.

eg8r

nhp
04-02-2004, 11:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
O.K. I read it all and I have to say I don't agree with most of it.
But at least you defend what you believe and I have to give you that, I meet a lot of people that refuse to stand up for what they believe in or even worse don't believe in anything which disturbs me beyond belief.
We will probably not see eye to eye politically but hey you can't be all bad if your hanging out on a pool players forum.
Blessings. <hr /></blockquote>

Sometimes after all this arguing I forget this is a pool forum /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I say we agree to disagree. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Take care,
Nate

nhp
04-02-2004, 12:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
When did he do this? Saddam was very public about paying the homicide bomber's families. I would think if he was in with the Palestinian terrorists he would surely have dabbled a little in Al Qaeda.
<hr /></blockquote>

The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in 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?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

Link to the entire transcript:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

eg8r
04-02-2004, 12:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[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?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.
<hr /></blockquote> Thank you. This does not say anything about Saddam not having ties with Al Qaeda. It does say there is no "direct link" to them, and that is the important part. Bush, did not say, there is no link between Saddam and the men, however he only agreed that there was no direct link.

eg8r

nhp
04-02-2004, 12:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Don't tell me what to do.
<font color="blue"> No, you stop telling me to stop telling you what to do! (kidding) </font color>

Reasons for war:

1. It was a legal action because Saddam did not abide by the cease-fire agreement of 1991 and the 17 UN resolutions.
<font color="blue">Please, if you are going to use this as one of your reasons, give me some accurate sources of which violations occurred, when and where. </font color>

2. He had WMD. Have you seen the films of the gassed Kurdish children? He was crazy enough to do anything, including supplying WMD to al-quaida. Bush, after what happened on 9/11, did not want to wake up to a gas attack in Grand Central Station.
<font color="blue">Everyone already knows there was no link between Saddam and Osama. Now, as for the gassing incident, I say we go and invade Germany because Hitler once lived there. Hello, the first Gulf War happened years after Saddam gassed the Iraqi Kurds, we already used that as an excuse for the first war, that and Saddam invading Kuwait. </font color>

3. It was a chance to free 25 million people and maybe, just maybe, plant the seed of democracy in that region.
<font color="blue"> Why spread democracy in a country that doesn't want it? The only civilians who support us in Iraq are the minority religious sects that were opposed to Saddam. The rest of the country hates us, why else do you think all of these attacks take place with no warning or any types of tips from someone who sees an insurgent publically placing a bomb in the wide open? </font color> <hr /></blockquote>


I don't understand why you and eg8r pretend like you give two craps about the Iraqi people, when neither of you give two craps about the poor people living in this country. You're just using "freeing" the Iraqi people as an excuse to back up your misguided belief that Dubya doesn't have ulterior motives for invading Iraq.

nhp
04-02-2004, 12:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you. This does not say anything about Saddam not having ties with Al Qaeda. It does say there is no "direct link" to them, and that is the important part. Bush, did not say, there is no link between Saddam and the men, however he only agreed that there was no direct link. <hr /></blockquote>

Any link is a direct link in this case, including funding terrorists, even nonfrequent communication between them. All of this was claimed, but later denied by our government.

eg8r
04-02-2004, 12:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Any link is a direct link in this case, including funding terrorists, even nonfrequent communication between them. All of this was claimed, but later denied by our government. <hr /></blockquote> I don't think any one would agree to this. Any link is vague and in no way ever implies a "direct link".

I would think anyone would have to be absolutely insane to believe Saddam had zero ties with Al Qaeda. Especially after what happened in Spain. There would be no reason for Al Qaeda to be hitting Spain in retaliation of Spain's efforts in Iraq.

eg8r

eg8r
04-02-2004, 12:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally:</font><hr> It was a legal action because Saddam did not abide by the cease-fire agreement of 1991 and the 17 UN resolutions.
[ QUOTE ]
Please, if you are going to use this as one of your reasons, give me some accurate sources of which violations occurred, when and where.
<hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote> You are joking right?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you and eg8r pretend like you give two craps about the Iraqi people, when neither of you give two craps about the poor people living in this country. <hr /></blockquote> Here you go again with you mouth spouting off crap your butt can't back up. Prove it...I think your problem is that I don't believe in helping them the same way you do. This is a problem, thankfully, only you have to deal with.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
04-02-2004, 01:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
..You are joking right?... <hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

That was a funny joke by nhp. I was laughing so hard I could not respond.