|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: War and Majority | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RedVento Inactive Member |
Why exactly should I be compassionate? Where was she when the towers fell on 9/11? Where is her compassion for the families of the thousands of people who lost someone that day? Where is her compassion for the people who made it possible for her to BE a free muslim in the US, to be able to burn US flags. I have compassion for those who needlessly died on 9/11. I'm sorry, but if she wanted to throw herself infront of a bulldozer that is her problem, and acts of stupidity deserve no compassion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I always think that compassion is deserved.
It is our compassion that keeps us from becoming cynical, callous, dehumanizers. Too late for some, I suppose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Links to sources, please. Don't you think if there was a "smoking gun" of a threat to the US that the administration would be waving it before us? All we have are "maybes" and implications, no hard evidence.
quote: No.
quote: Calm down, war-monger.
quote: Oh, so Bush calling North Korea "evil" had nothing to do with them feeling threatened and ramping up their program? They are right to feel threatened. They might be next.
quote: WHAT HARM has Iraq done to the US??? Like I said, the humanitarian issue is moot, because we didn't care what Hussein did to his people back when we gave him lots of money and weapons.
quote: So, it's perfectly OK with you that the Bush administration has very intentionally lied to and misled the "brain dead" American public in order to whip up revenge feelings for Iraq, which had nothing to do with Sept 11? Holy crap, you really will go to any length to support Bush's regime, won't you, including excusing intentional misleding the public, won't you?
quote: And so would a great many more people in many other countries, both before thie current invasion of Iraq and most certainly now that we have done it.
quote: Now who is hiding from the facts?
quote: It's not a miniscule amount of oil, sorry: The New York Times Upfront | Current Events for Grades 9-12 "Critics of U.S. policy say the Bush administration's plans to invade Iraq have less to do with weapons of mass destruction than with a U.S. desire to control a major source of oil for decades to come. Iraq's known oil reserves, 112 billion barrels, rank second in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
RedVento writes: I guess them using BANNED scuds What is the difference between scud missiles and the missiles that America or other countries use? My memory is a little hazy, but didn't America use scud missiles in the first gulf war? ------------------He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
War in Iraq: The Oil Factor
* Representatives of major US oil companies have been meeting with Iraqi opposition leaders. Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the US-funded umbrella opposition organization, told the Washington Post that "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil." * The Bush administration has close ties to the oil industry: both President Bush and Vice President Cheney worked in the oil business. Forty-one senior Bush administration officials were former oil companies executives or have substantial stockholdings or other financial ties to the industry. * In congressional testimony in 1999, General Anthony Zinni, then commander of the US Central Command which includes the Middle East and Central Asia, stated in congressional testimony (April, 13, 1999)that the Gulf region, with its huge oil reserves,is a "vital interest" of "longstanding" for the US, and that the US" must have free access to the region's resources." * All five permanent members of the UN Security Council have international oil companies with major stakes in regime change in Iraq. According to the Washington Post (Sept. 15), the US isusing the promise of access to Iraq's oil as a bargaining chip in its negotiations with Security Council members. "It's pretty straightforward," former CIA director James Woolsey told the Post. "If they [Security Council members] are of assistance, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new [Iraqi] government and American companies work closely with them."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi compmage, just a quick correction:
What is the difference between scud missiles and the missiles that America or other countries use? My memory is a little hazy, but didn't America use scud missiles in the first gulf war? "SCUD" is a NATO designation for the Soviet-era medium range ballistic missile R-17 (NATO calls it SS-1B). It's a strategic bombardment weapon, capable of carrying chemical or conventional warheads. The ones in the Iraqi inventory are actually Iraqi "improved SCUDs" known as the Al-Hussein (basically increased range and payload). Under the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, ultimately formalized in UNSCR 687, Iraq agreed to destroy all of its Al-Husseins as part of the disarmament agreement. Needless to say they failed to comply (what a surprise). The US and Coalition allies used TLAM-C "Tomahawk" missiles (precision guided vice strategic bombardment) in Desert Storm, several subsequent strikes, and of course the current conflict. It may be a subtle difference if you're not familiar with the capabilities, but it's the equivalent of targeting a city with the hopes of hitting somewhere within the confines and targeting the second window from the left on the third floor of a particular building. So no, the US didn't use SCUDs, and in fact wouldn't use 'em even if they had them since they are so imprecise. Hope that helps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Quetzal writes: So no, the US didn't use SCUDs, and in fact wouldn't use 'em even if they had them since they are so imprecise. Hope that helps. Thank you, this was more or less what I was looking for. ------------------He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RedVento Inactive Member |
Back when we gave him FOOD and Money(no weapons otherwise he'd be using them not RUSSIAN AND CHINESE weapons) he was the lesser of two evils, unless you are suggestion we should have supported Iran?
http://www.rppi.org/isitabouttheoil.html
nytimes.com...{Shortened URL display, to restore page width to normal - AM} There are some opposing views that you can dismiss. I'm done with this thread and war talk in general. Nothing personal, but neither of us is going to change our views and going in circles becomes way to much like exercise. [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-25-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
OK, I think I understand.
You think it's fine for the Bush Administration to mislead the public into believing that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Either that or you are too fundamentalist in your Republicanism to admit that what they did and are doing was/is terribly wrong. You were under the mistaken belief that Iraq didn't have much oil, so you didn't believe that we were invading to get their oil, but when I pointed out to you that Iraq's known oil reserves were in the neighborhood of 112 BILLION barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia's, you do not admit that you were not properly infomed. You suddenly run away from the conversation, and the facts. Must be nice to keep your head in the sand, to quote you back to yourself. It looks an AWFUL LOT like this war is about the Bush regime wanting to get control of Iraq's enormous oil reserves, but it appears that your fundamentalist belief in your conservativism will not allow you to admit it. I also refer you to message #66 in this thread for more evidence that this is a war primarily about oil, and not about saving the Iraqi people. If we waged war to save people from horrible dictators, we would have been at war in Africa a long time ago, and we would have gone to Afghanistan long before Sept. 11. [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-26-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
In message 69 this phrase was used:
quote: This is unfortunately a common situation, for the U.S. to find the need to support the lesser of two evils. Then, somewhere down the road, the lesser becomes a "greater evil". Quickly added by edit - So, in the current war, is the U.S. the lesser of the two evils? - end edit. Moose [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-26-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RedVento Inactive Member |
Iraq is sitting on approx 112 Billion gallons of oil, its current output is not worth going after. (3.5 Billion Barrels a Day pre 1991 levels or 1.3% of the WORLD OUTPUT)
Consider this, or if you had read my links you would have seen this. The war is going to cost approx 75 Billion, rebuilding the country as well as the oil infrastructure will cost approx 20-100 billion. The oil contracts are not worth nearly that, approx 40 Billion. So you do the math... How is 3.5 billion barrels of oil a day, OR 40 billion in contracts worth at the best 95 billion, the worst 175 billion. It makes no sense. Saddam now is claiming to use chemical weapons you say he doesn't have, if we cross some imaginary line going into bagdad. His troops are outfitted with the latest in chemical weapon protection. Yet I am the one with my head in the sand, I am the one being cynical. Perhaps in YOUR short sighted liberal brain YOU are UNABLE to even contemplate the fact that we are actually there to take care of someone who needs to be removed from power. And the last time I checked Bush wasn't in office during the late 70's or 80's to do anything about Saddam massacring Kurds, however by your logic if we didnt do anything then we have no right to do anything now. Way to look out for everyone, and show your immense "compassion." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do the math, or sort through the evidence(both sides) and come to a conclusion. You however seem to be stuck so far to the left that you refuse to see any contrary evidence, your short sightedness is not my problem. I, along with the majority of the nation, understand why we are there. And btw I am a moderate republican who understands what needs to be done to make the world a little bit safer for those like you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
So, do you believe it is perfectly fine that the Bush regime has deliberately misled the American Public into believing that Saddam Hussein is somehow linked to, and responsible for, the Sept. 11 attacks?
Do you think that Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric had nothing at all to do with North Korea feeling threatened and ramping up it's nuclear program.
quote: No shit their CURRENT output is low. That, according to what I have read, is partly due to infrastructure and other problems, not because they don't have much oil. Much of Iraq is unexplored for oil, and they also have a lot of natural gas yet to be extracted as well. Did Oil Drive the US Invasion of Iraq? "While its proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks Iraq second in the work behind Saudi Arabia, EIA estimates that up to 90-percent of the county remains unexplored due to years of wars and sanctions. Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100 billion barrels. Iraq's oil production costs are among the lowest in the world. However, only about 2,000 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared to about 1 million wells in Texas alone. Iraqi Oil ProductionShortly after its failed 1990 invasion of Kuwait and imposition of resulting trade embargos, Iraq's oil production fell from 3.5 million barrels per day to around 300,000 barrels per day. By February 2002, Iraqi oil production had recovered to about 2.5 million barrels per day. Iraqi officials had hoped to increase the country's oil production capacity to 3.5 million barrels per day by the end of 2000, but did not accomplish this given technical problems with Iraqi oil fields, pipelines, and other oil infrastructure. Iraq also claims that oil production capacity expansion has been constrained by refusal of the United Nations to provide Iraq with all the oil industry equipment it has requested." Consider this, or if you had read my links you would have seen this.
quote: Well, I agree that it makes no sense in the long term, but let's also remember that oil in texas is pretty much drying up. Bush and his oil buddies are going to have to look to other sources of oil if they are going to survive.
quote: Chemical weapons are not WMD. [added by edit 3/28--I am wrong. Some chemical weapons are certainly WMD, such as mustard gas. We shall see if he has them, won't we?] They might be illegal for Hussein to have, but we certainly didn't care that he used them on his own people when we were funding him and Rumsfeld was photographed smiling and shaking his hand. Besides, back when he was fighting Iran, we gave his military lots of training, including training in torture and interrogation.
quote: So, why aren't we also waging war and taking out the leaders in Africa, North Korea, South America, China or the Balkans? The government of Afghanistan was a hundred times more insanely-murderous and oppressive and cruel to it's people than Saddam Hussein was to the people of Iraq. Yet Afghanistan didn't get our attention until they aided and abetted someone who hurt us directly, in a big way. There are dozens of crazy, murderous dictators who abuse and oppress their people around the world. Why don't we go "liberate" those countries? I think a large part of it is oil, and I also think that it's possible that the funamentalist Christians are cheering this on (and pulling strings) as well. Bush also made that comment about the assasination attempt by Hussein on his father. I also think that this kind of thing is simply what George Bush Jr. is most comfortable doing. It's very easy to wage war.
quote: Well, Rumsfeld was sent to Iraq by Ronald Reagan to make nice with Hussein, and we knew then that he was a very very bad man who did very bad things to his people. We knew he had nuclear aspirations, we knew he was using chemical weapons, we knew he was a ruthless, crazy dictator who murdered anyone who got in his way. We gave him money and taught his soldiers how to be better at torture, interrogation, and killing. It's a bit rich for you to say that we "didn't do anything about it then." We IGNORED it, and gave him money and training so he could do it MORE EFFECTIVELY.
quote: No, the majority of the nation, 51%, think that we have invaded Iraq because they believe that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the September 11th attacks!! So, whould you support an attack on the dictators in Africa and spend buillions to rebuild their countries? What about China; should we invade them because they have oppressed and killed the Tibetans? By your reasoning, we should support the idea that India should invade Pakistan in a preemptive strike, and the same support should go to South Korea for invading North Korea preemptively. Is this what you are suggesting would be a good idea? Lots of instability all over the world?
quote: The world SAFER? I predict that this war will only make things much less safe for Americans. I predict that it will make it much more likely that a fundamentalist moslem dictatorship will take over in Iraq eventually as well as promoting radical anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab and Moslem world, making terrorism more likely. I think that we will have to work very, very hard to gain back our prestige and credibility internationally. I think this war has made our future dealings with North Korea even more difficult. [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-28-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
Red Vento says ...
quote: So let's do some maths. 3.5 Billion Barrels a day at 42 gallons per barrel = 147 billion Gallons a day. So if Iraq is sitting on 112 Billion gallons, they should run out in 112 / 147 days - that's about 16 hours. Sorting through the evidence we can come to the conclusions: A: RedVento is no rocket scientist (thank God)B: RedVento doesn't have a clue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Welcome back Mr P!
Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
Thanks - it has been too long and I have missed participating. We had a bereavement and I had to go home for several weeks. Since returning to the States I have been been working pretty intensely and only had time to lurk, but it's easing off now, so time for some fun.
Seems like there has been quite a lot going on in the last few months.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024