It's war time...

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

Check it out. Cool!!!!!!

Shoot Saddam

http://ads.hitcents.com/cgi-bin/click.cgi?user=415076:1:A4

Got it in my email.

 

[1zenlunatic 10+ year member]

Hey, can anybody confirm this rumor, or is it just a rumor?

Is the U.S. offering a reward for catching Saddam or is that just Bin Laden?

Something in the ballpark of $250,000??

If its true, can anybody quote me a good price on a bullpup-2 and a good sniper rifle??

Probably a bunch of crap, like i said though, just a rumor i heard floating around.

Also, did yall know that Bin Laden is on dialysis?

Hes got to carry around lots of gear to get his kidneys to work..I think he's in Pakistan or therabouts but who knows, speculation isnt really worth much.

 

[1zenlunatic 10+ year member]

Originally posted by joshpoints The marijuana thing could be argued. It seems like i read that after smoking a joint your chances of a heart attack with in a certain amount of time increases a substantial amount. SO if the person isn't healthy it could kill them. My only problem with marijuana is the issue of second hand smoke, those some would say it is not unhealthy, or the issue of smoking in public, and driving under the influence.

Hey Joshpoints, If i remember correctly, Bob Marley died of Brain Cancer. He wasnt that old

and he did smoke some acres of weed!

I know thats not necessarily proof of anything but it looks like a possible link ya know.

 

[1zenlunatic 10+ year member]

Hey, can anybody confirm this rumor, or is it just a rumor?

Is the U.S. offering a reward for catching Saddam or is that just Bin Laden?

Something in the ballpark of $250,000??

If its true, can anybody quote me a good price on a bullpup-2 and a good sniper rifle??

Probably a bunch of crap, like i said though, just a rumor i heard floating around.

Also, did yall know that Bin Laden is on dialysis?

Hes got to carry around lots of gear to get his kidneys to work..I think he's in Pakistan or therabouts but who knows, speculation isnt really worth much.

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Originally posted by 1zenlunatic Hey Joshpoints, If i remember correctly, Bob Marley died of Brain Cancer. He wasnt that old

and he did smoke some acres of weed!

 

I know thats not necessarily proof of anything but it looks like a possible link ya know.

They also say it may have a link to lung cancer, due to the high levels of tar in it. Also part of the problem with marijuana is all the drugs that come with it. people lace marijuana with other drugs (angel dust) to make it stronger.

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Man.. you really are that stupid? Kuwait asked us for help, what, we are gonna go help and then steal their oil wells? have fun trying to keep them.. not to mention that ALL the countries in the world would have a problem with that..

OK we liberate Kuwait. IF we had kept the oil wells what could they do? Remember they couldn't even fend off Iraq. SO how does this show that all we want is the oil?

Then, since we LEFT IRAQ, of course we 'gave them back their oil fields'.. so?

Again please explain how spending billions to take the oil fields and then return them demonstrates that the real reason we did it was to get the oil? You are making NO sense here and in fact directly contradicting your prior blubber. Where's Yogi cause you need some help here?

And for us 'not allowing them to ship oil'.. guess what, that would mean that some of the AMERICAN OIL GUYS would loose a LOT of money..

OK now please explain how Iraq NOT shipping oil causes lost American profits? An argument for the reverse could actually be made as oil prices since the 1st rnd of the Gulf War have remained high which would make American oil sell for more. Confliction again.

falling prices means falling profits

A complete falsehood and flies in the face of all macro economic theory. Falling prices mean falling DEMAND. If the producing companies fail to make a profit they cease to exist. As the "commodity" or oil drops in value less is produced (pumped) which lowers overall costs. Eventually the price reaches a stable point to where it is no longer falling and production levels off and profits remain. Companies which are unable to adapt to a changing market DIE which in turn makes it easier to retain profit for the survivors.

(unless we don't see the effect at the pumps)..

In a capitalist economy with free competition this is an impossibility. The more oil on the market the lower the end price per gallon. If supply exceeds demand the price plummets. This leads to companies who cannot adapt falling by the wayside and production being reduced. If demand exceeds supply prices skyrocket. New oilfields open. Production increases. Prices stabilize again. Oil companies cannot just say "gasoline is $2.50/gallon and get it with supply exceeding demand. If this is tried SOMEBODY will think "hey I can pick up a ton of business at $2.25/ga;;on". Then someone else sees this and responds with $2.00/gallon. Eventually there again as much demand as supply and stability returns.

And, that would be giving SADDAM money, not something we wanted to do.. so, now, we want the oil (perhaps 10x as much as Saudi has, by last report.. making it 10x more than the next single largest reserve in the world)

PLEASE substantiate this. As is usual with your "revelations" you are the only source we have.

but can't have it if we let Saddam stay in office.. he would get the money and we can't let that happen given our past (and still kind of running actions with the UN and sanctions)..

Wrong again. IF these fields are that rich and IF we let Saddamite Hussinsein pump it he would be the first supplier to flood the market. Iraq is heavily in debt to Russia, France, and Germany (hmmmmmm?). This is also how he has financed his military in the past and why he has started so many wars of aggression. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE STOPPED IRAQ FROM BRINGING IT'S OIL TO MARKET other than to pay for food and medicine even though it has hurt our economy.

so we go to war and replace him with someone sympathetic to the US and our government..

UMMM I thought you had stated we were going to do a 10 year occupation. In fact if I remember right you once GUARANTEED (maybe only predicted I can track it if you like) that within 5 years Iraq would be a colony of the US?

why is it that hard for you to see that VERY distinct possiblity? Why are many US OIL companies supporting this war?

THIS IS THE ONE THAT SLAYS ME MOST OF ALL. Why is it that you put all of your faith in this REMOTE possibility for which you have no apparent evidence other than fantasy AND ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to consider the fact that our motives were in reality:

1-To liberate the people of Iraq. EVIDENCE: We did it.

2-To enforce 17 UN resolutions. EVIDENCE: We are doing it.

3-Disarming Iraq. EVIDENCE: It's military is crushed.

4-Removing weapons of mass destruction. EVIDENCE: Substantial although unproven beyond a doubt YET the evidence gets more voluminous each day.

Besides since Dubya made his big money from the Texas Rangers and baseball I thought we were after their shortstops? Or was it their left handed starting pitchers?

Why are many US OIL companies supporting this war?

Why are many US auto companies supporting this war? Is it for their auto plants?//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif

Why are many US cigarette companies supporting this war? Is it for their tobacco plantations?//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif

Why are many US beer companies supporting this war? Is it for the Saddamweiser breweries?//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif

Why are many US OIL bugspray companies supporting this war? Is it for their chemical weapons facilities? (OOOPS I forgot Saddamite Hussinsein said he doesn't have any.)//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif

Why are many US ministers supporting this war? Is it for their mosques?//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif

Why are many US police departments supporting this war? Is it for their jails?

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif

THAT IS THE LAMEST ARGUMENT YOU HAVE MADE YET!

PEACE

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Technical difficulties have forced me try a third time to respond to Savant. I don't feel like typing up another long thing so I'll keep it short.

Savant, remember that statement history repeats itself? If you don't know history how can you prevent it from repeating itself. I think it is very wise for LWW to look at the past history. Very, Very wise philosophers have made a theory that if the past is known very precisely the future can be predicted. So the more detailed the past is known the more accurate the prediction of the future will be.

We don't have enough money to build every nation and go into every nation that you listed. There are other reasons but I don't have time to go into them.

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Very, Very wise philosophers have made a theory that if the past is known very precisely the future can be predicted. So the more detailed the past is known the more accurate the prediction of the future will be.

This is so true it's scary. Dates, technology, weather conditions, geographic locations, and other variables count and also change over time often quickly. The one constant though is human nature.

The anti war gang HATES the Hitler analogy we know. WHY? Because it shows the error of their thinking.

As examples:

Hitler and Saddam both were the leader's of Fascist states.

Hitler and Saddam both were intent on exterminating a group of people based on their religion.

Hitler and Saddam both were both intent upon war's of aggression to build an empire.

Hitler and Saddam both violated with impunity every treaty they ever signed.

Hitler and Saddam were both men who wanted to restore vast empires from their region's long ago past.

Hitler and Saddam both used gas on their own citizens.

Hitler and Saddam both denied the possession of WMD's until they used them.

Hitler and Saddam both sponsored terrorist subterfuge against their opponents.

Hitler and Saddam both manipulated western liberals and media to believe they were not "truly" a threat to peace.

The United Nations and the League of Nations both debated ad nauseum and passed endless resolutions demanding both to become responsible leaders. Hitler and Saddam both ignored these attempts.

France and Russia both sought to "appease" Hitler and Saddam. Hitler and Saddam both took advantage of both.

Hitler moved on the Ukraine oilfields. Saddam moved on the Mid East oil fields.

Anti war crowds in the US and England both protested at any hint of intervention.

Winston Churchhill was the only world leader taking a hard line against Hitler at first. George Bush was the only world leader taking a hard line against Saddam at first.

Churchhill was foolishly voted out of office in favor of a liberal administration after the war. Bush was foolishly voted out of office in favor of a liberal administration after the war (round 1).

European citizens welcomed American and British troops as saviors and liberators. Kuwaiti and Iraqi citizens welcomed American and British troops as saviors and liberators.

The big DIFFERENCE is that in the 1930's nobody listened to until Hitler invaded France. This time people LISTENED and a SMALL conflict was fought so that a LARGE one could have be avoided.

One of the great what if's of history is that when the Germans marched into the Sudetenland, with orders to run if they met resistance, what would have happened had the British and the French CRUSHED the Wehrmacht...swatted the Luftwaffe from the sky...and marched to BERLIN...all before the ME262, the V1, the V2, or a 7,000,000 man military could be assembled?

Auschwitz, Treblinka, the Warsaw Ghetto...never would have happened. D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge, the siege of Bastogne and Stalingrad...never would have happened.

The A-bomb possibly never even invented? The Cold War likely averted?

6,000,000 Jews. 30,000,000 others. Their lives spared. Once those with the power to change history stared into the abyss of hell then turned their backs and walked away. SHAME ON THEM for all times. Let us never forget what the inaction of Marshall Petain and Neville Chamberlain and Kellog and Briand wrought upon humanity.

This time world leaders looked into the abyss and acted. Let history retell for future generations that Saddam was tossed on the scrap heap with Hitler, Amin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Tojo, Bonaparte, Attila, Khan, and other despots who brought misery to us.

Let children of the future know that Bush and Blair did not blink but freed a nation a region and possibly a planet from an existence not unlike Hades itself.

SHAME ON THOSE who ignored evil when they saw it and did nothing.

PEACE

 

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

THIS IS THE ONE THAT SLAYS ME MOST OF ALL. Why is it that you put all of your faith in this REMOTE possibility for which you have no apparent evidence other than fantasy AND ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to consider the fact that our motives were in reality:
1-To liberate the people of Iraq. EVIDENCE: We did it.

2-To enforce 17 UN resolutions. EVIDENCE: We are doing it.

3-Disarming Iraq. EVIDENCE: It's military is crushed.

4-Removing weapons of mass destruction. EVIDENCE: Substantial although unproven beyond a doubt YET the evidence gets more voluminous each day.

Reasons 2 through 4 I will accept as motives, 1 is just a side effect of completing 2-4. I would've accpted liberation had it not been an after thought when the original reasons for going in lost supprt.

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Quote:

Again, finding delivery systems is not the same as finding chemical weapons.. Yes, I agree that it's damm likely that he has the shells for chem weapons, but that does NOT mean he has any of those weapons assembled, nor does it mean he was in the process, nor does it mean he even has the chemicals to do it.. he USED to, but we don't know for sure if he does NOW..

Response:

Let's see if this makes sense to you Savant. If you were a bad guy (Sadam), I know you're a compassionate guy at heart, even though it doesn't show on this thread sometimes, would it make sense to carry the shells? Why would you carry the illegal chemical weapons shells, without having the chemicals somewhere? Having the shells is enough to break the resolution. Why would you even keep the shells and risk the chance of an attack if you don't have chemicals to hide? Either Sadam is extremely stupid (I don't think he is) or he has something that is worth keeping the shells for. Do you see where I'm coming from? Probably not. You remind me of the philosophers that believe in indeterminism (or randomness). This philosophy believes things just happen. We can't explain events. We can't explain or find links between data because links don't exist according to the indeterminent theory. There are no causal laws with this theory. There is no cause for Sadam having shells, he just has them. It can't be explained. I don't believe in this theory as most people do.

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW OK we liberate Kuwait. IF we had kept the oil wells what could they do? Remember they couldn't even fend off Iraq. SO how does this show that all we want is the oil?

Yes, what could 'Kuwait' do.. not much, they needed our help.. the point you conveintly ignored is the GLOBAL OPINION.. meaning, if we didn't return those fields to Kuwait, the rest of the middle east would have gone nuts. Not to mention, we would have had to leave a substantial military force in Kuwait to keep the oil as there would have been all kinds of terror acts on any US people present..

Again please explain how spending billions to take the oil fields and then return them demonstrates that the real reason we did it was to get the oil? You are making NO sense here and in fact directly contradicting your prior blubber. Where's Yogi cause you need some help here?

Actually, from reports I've seen on CNN.. The first war only costed the US a few million by the time it was over (something like $40 mill?) because we had repayment from Kuwait and other countries.. THIS time, we are footing the bill on our own? in a failing economy? over $100 BILLION dollars with NO repayment from anyone? And you don't think the Administration plans on getting that money somehow?

And, we couldn't keep the well last time anyway since there was a cease-fire signed.. that means, by the rules, we can not occupy their land... we gave Saddam back his country (foolishly given what we knew about him, I was appaled that Bush - I fukked that up) so we had to give it all to him.. The difference NOW is, we want that oil AND a foothold in the Middle East..Therefore we have to get Saddam out and a sympathetic leader in..

OK now please explain how Iraq NOT shipping oil causes lost American profits? An argument for the reverse could actually be made as oil prices since the 1st rnd of the Gulf War have remained high which would make American oil sell for more. Confliction again.

Actually, looking at my statement, I wasn't explicity clear.. I was getting at what you are saying now.. if we had let him produce that oil (and brought it to the US), prices for what it costs for crude would fall.. That would mean (in theory) the price at the pumps would fall and total revenue would fall.. Granted, in theory though, the profit margin would remain constant .. But, it's easier to 'hide' a few pennies a gallon here and there when the costs of raw materials is higher.. just like jewlery is way more expensive than the raw materials, it's perception that lets the prices get so high.. for the average person, if they hear the cost of oil is 'high', they know prices for gasoline are going to be high so it's easier for the producers to pad costs a tad (legally, I'm not trying to imply anything other than standard legal pricing schemes).. when the average joe hears prices are plumitting on oil prices, they expect to see gasoline prices fall too.. harder to stick 3 - 5 cents a gallon on at that point.. not impossible, but harder (or so it would seem to me)..

A complete falsehood and flies in the face of all macro economic theory. Falling prices mean falling DEMAND. If the producing companies fail to make a profit they cease to exist. As the "commodity" or oil drops in value less is produced (pumped) which lowers overall costs. Eventually the price reaches a stable point to where it is no longer falling and production levels off and profits remain. Companies which are unable to adapt to a changing market DIE which in turn makes it easier to retain profit for the survivors.

You are talking to the wrong end of the system.. you are talking about the demand for gasoline (which is ever growing DESPITE prices).. For the back-end you are correct.. if no one wants a yo-yo for $20, you can't sell enough to keep the company alive.. if people are willing to pay $10 , there is a 'demand' at that price.. there might be a bit more 'demand' at lower prices, but that's where the profit calculator comes in.. there are two curves, their intersection is the max profit selling price (and is based on research and studies and guessing initially).. But, if the cost in the FRONT END goes down, the price should come down too REGARDLESS of demand.. You said before that VCRs dropped in price because of where they were made (switching from one sweat-shop type country to another) but I pointed out the change in technology that significantly reduced the cost of components.. That is more like the oil-gas model than the 'back end supply-demand' model.. if the price comes down a lot, you 'might' get more people buying.. but in the case of gasoline, I doubt it.. gasoline sales aren't plumitting because prices are going up.. our society is heavily dependant on cars and gasoline, therefore we have to absorb the costs with few other options.. Believe me, I understand the Capitalistic Economic model well.. Not an expert, but I've had courses on it so I understand it better than the average american..

In a capitalist economy with free competition this is an impossibility. The more oil on the market the lower the end price per gallon. If supply exceeds demand the price plummets. This leads to companies who cannot adapt falling by the wayside and production being reduced. If demand exceeds supply prices skyrocket. New oilfields open. Production increases. Prices stabilize again. Oil companies cannot just say "gasoline is $2.50/gallon and get it with supply exceeding demand. If this is tried SOMEBODY will think "hey I can pick up a ton of business at $2.25/ga;;on". Then someone else sees this and responds with $2.00/gallon. Eventually there again as much demand as supply and stability returns.

Here is an example of your not understanding things, if you ask me. In the 'theory' of capitalism I would agree, but in practice that's simply not the case. If the theory was complete, everyone would also have free access to capital to produce their ideas, but that's not how it works here.. if you have an idea, you have to find someone that owns the means of production to build it for you (for a nominal percentage, like 75% of all profits maybe? and if you aren't careful, and they like the idea, they might steal it outright and leave you with nothing.. why? cause they are rich and can.. sad but it happens all the time)..

Then you have the pesky little issue of price fixing.. Since there are only a few people (perhaps dozens at most? I'm guessing 5 or less) that actaully own all the oil companies/processing plants in the US, they can sit around at dinner and discuss what works for all of them.. so, as the bottom falls off crude prices, the price at the pump for gasoline only goes down, say 75% of what it should have.. Granted, it's illegal. but why do you think it's illegal? Cause human nature and greed and limited ownership play a huge role, and when 4 or 5 greedy guys get together and think up ways to gouge people the public suffers badly.. that's why we have a government.. to protect U.S. CITIZENS.. from problems foreign and domestic.. right?

PLEASE substantiate this. As is usual with your "revelations" you are the only source we have.

[/qoute]

I wasn't able to find the CNN report that there could be up to 10x as much as Saudi.. but I did find these..

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200103/21/eng20010321_65623.html

http://anyboard.net/soc/2think/posts/21074.html

Looks like only 2x as much as Saudi .. but, the bottom line is still that 90% or so of Iraq is NOT explored well for oil.. Once the US gets to look around to help the new government find oil, there could be a lot more..

I also read a number of good articles (one was a .pdf file) that talk about OPEC and Saudi Arabi and oil price fixing.. and since the US is so dependant on Saudi oil, it has a hard time doing anything with Palistine/Isreal because Saudi keeps pulling the trump card.. but, if we have access to Iraqi oil, with the second largest PROVEN reserves, we could walk from Saudi oil with impunity.. And work on OPEC.. There was also a few blurbs about how Bush and the administration started talking about Iraqi oil long before the war.. Cheney is head of a commity .. though his suggestion was to loosen environmental laws and open Alaskan wilderness areas for drilling instead of supporting alternative fuel research.. and it mentioned that Bush was the head of a Texas oil company, Cheney was CEO of Halliburton (an oil services company), and National Security Advisor Rice was the director of Chevron (and has a tanker named after her)... Hmm.. na, this administration isn't in oil, it's in baseball... STEEEEEEERIKE!

Oh, and Afganastan was a route planned for bringing Asian oil to the Arabian Sea.. now that it's 'liberated', we can start building the pipelines.. hmm..

Here is the link to that pdf doc..

http://www.vicpeace.org/fact-sheets/FactSheet8vpn.pdf

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Wrong again. IF these fields are that rich and IF we let Saddamite Hussinsein pump it he would be the first supplier to flood the market. Iraq is heavily in debt to Russia, France, and Germany (hmmmmmm?). This is also how he has financed his military in the past and why he has started so many wars of aggression. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE STOPPED IRAQ FROM BRINGING IT'S OIL TO MARKET other than to pay for food and medicine even though it has hurt our economy.

Yes.... and if we get him out and get the oil flowing .. HE WONT BE THERE TO USE THE MONEY, our puppet will be, and I'm betting we will be seeing some of those profits comming this way for a while too.. I sure would like to see if part of the diplomatic constructs after the war include 'temporary ownership rights' to some of the fields for some of the oil kings in the US.. I can see it now.. "You let me **** oil from the fields for 10 years, I'll give you 20% of the cash.. and I'll build state of the art wells there for you..".. That's a lot of oil for the US and a LOT of profits for the oil guys in the US..

UMMM I thought you had stated we were going to do a 10 year occupation. In fact if I remember right you once GUARANTEED (maybe only predicted I can track it if you like) that within 5 years Iraq would be a colony of the US?

No, our GOVERNMENT said they had a 10 year occupation plan in place.. but now they are looking at abandoning that in the face of 100s of Iraqi citizens comming home now that Saddam is ousted and vowing to attack the US soldiers if we don't leave as soon as Saddam is dead.. The US 'planned' on staying, but now realized it can't.. And I said it may well become a 'territory' of the US, not a colony.. like Quam is a 'territory'.. we have access rights and such, but I don't think we have direct governmental control.. I don't know though.. I was stationed there for 6 months, and 3 people from my base were shot by locals in bars.. nice place //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif but it's a strategic spot in the middle of nowhere.. a leap-pad..

THIS IS THE ONE THAT SLAYS ME MOST OF ALL. Why is it that you put all of your faith in this REMOTE possibility for which you have no apparent evidence other than fantasy AND ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to consider the fact that our motives were in reality:

 

1-To liberate the people of Iraq. EVIDENCE: We did it.

Propaganda.. that's not why we are there.. as Joshpoints even said, it would cost too much to rebuild all of the oppressed nations that NEED to be liberated, so we aren't gonna go after them.. yet, we LIBERATED the single best source of OIL we could get our hands on to get out from under Saudi oil? and 'middle east' dependancies (presuming it's a US sypmathetic gov we put in place.. I'm betting it will be) .. and, again, the US has NEVER started a foreign war to liberate anyone, despite there being TONS of people that need it.. the US DOES NOT CARE about those people, never has and I doubt this is the start of us starting now.. there are too many other things going on..

2-To enforce 17 UN resolutions. EVIDENCE: We are doing it.

3-Disarming Iraq. EVIDENCE: It's military is crushed.

4-Removing weapons of mass destruction. EVIDENCE: Substantial although unproven beyond a doubt YET the evidence gets more voluminous each day.

Nice to see you admit there isn't proof yet.. I commend you.. And, as I've stated MANY times, I also agree that there is a lot of evidence that 'points' to what we might find.. my point was simply we didn't have proof 'yet'..

Also, to address 2 - 4.. I also am of the 'opinion' that we 'might' have been able to do 2 - 4 with troops pointing guns into Iraq but not actually going in.. Bush stopped that before we could find out.. That's all I was getting at with that as well.. *shrug*

Besides since Dubya made his big money from the Texas Rangers and baseball I thought we were after their shortstops? Or was it their left handed starting pitchers?

As I said, only rich people can buy baseball teams.. and since Bush Senior is in oil, Bush Jr had access to the money.. And, Bush Jr was the head of a Texas Oil company (I'm sure you know the one //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif ).. if you need me to find out which one, I can do that too.. but I think you know as well as I do that the Bush family is tied into oil.. still.. today.. not just pitchers and catchers..

Why are many US auto companies supporting this war? Is it for their auto plants?//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif

Cause they make military vehicles that will need to be replaced?

Why are many US cigarette companies supporting this war? Is it for their tobacco plantations?//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif

I have no idea.. not heard an official stance from tobacco.. maybe it's just because they are sadistic and make money from killing people? and like seeing death? dunno //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Why are many US beer companies supporting this war? Is it for the Saddamweiser breweries?//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif

Cause a free Iraq drinks beer? again, not heard any official 'support' for the war from breweries..

Why are many US OIL bugspray companies supporting this war? Is it for their chemical weapons facilities? (OOOPS I forgot Saddamite Hussinsein said he doesn't have any.)//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/nono.gif.eca61d170185779e0921b0faa9704973.gif

Stop.. just stop.. that gets no one anywhere..

Why are many US ministers supporting this war? Is it for their mosques?

Cause there are an estimated 500,000 Christians in Iraq.. and actually, there are a number of religious groups that are worried because Saddam let the Christians have their beliefs and there is fear that an Islam leader might cut Christianity out all together.. Here's an article..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,930832,00.html

Why are many US police departments supporting this war? Is it for their jails?

like the beer and tobacco.. I doubt there is an official position.. if there is, it could simply be that they are government institutions and want to send the message to the masses it's important to blindly follow authority? never know..

THAT IS THE LAMEST ARGUMENT YOU HAVE MADE YET!

Given that you actually managed to debate points and not really degenerate into flogging me with pointless mobing, I'll take that as a compliment //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Oh, wanted to comment on your very long 'history' post as well.. Yes, there are things Saddam did/does that are like what Hitler did.. however, the reason one should not compare them is that Saddam is stuck in a country smaller than California.. He is under VERY tight scrutiny.. You made a few statements that I'd like to point out and refute.. but overall, I have to agree with that post.. I just disagree that this is a similar enough situation to warrent invasion like we did..

Hitler and Saddam both violated with impunity every treaty they ever signed.

Since Saddam was being watched he wasn't getting away with much (on a political basis... killing his own people is not an issue in this context).. The US has bombed him on several occasions before this and after '91, that is not 'with impunity'.. Hitler went unchecked for quite a while.. we DID learn from that, I just believe we got too agressive too quickly.. that's all..

Anti war crowds in the US and England both protested at any hint of intervention.

I think you might be a bit off here.. Yes, there are protests, but at least for me, it's not that there is intervention, it's that there is INVASION before ALL other methods were tried.. You keep saying we did everything we could, I disagree.. we may well never agree on that particular point.. But, for me, I acknowledge that something had to be done to prevent Saddam from getting too dangerous to the rest of the world..

The big DIFFERENCE is that in the 1930's nobody listened to until Hitler invaded France. This time people LISTENED and a SMALL conflict was fought so that a LARGE one could have be avoided.

I'm gonna say that the 'this' time was in 91 when Saddam tried to take over Kuwait.. it was at that point that knowing history may well have motivated action.. a good thing.. but 'today', this is a different matter.. Saddam isn't getting big like Hitler did (conquring wise).. He was contained and blocked up in Iraq..

The A-bomb possibly never even invented? The Cold War likely averted?

This I will strongly DISagree with.. Science is not depanant on wars.. wars might increase government funding in certian areas and expidite certian things, but I don't believe we wouldn't learn things because there aren't wars.. Science makes new discoveries despite it's self.. That's what Science is all about..

As for all the deaths associated with that war, yes.. I agree.. But those deaths are part of what have us keeping such a close eye on people like Saddam.. Immagine if the entire Hitler thing didn't happen.. all those people lived.. but today Saddam was building nukes and we weren't watching him cause Hitler wasn't around.. If Saddam gets mad enough, he could have killed BILLIONS by nuking the Middle East and Asia.. and might well have been able to nuke us too.. hell, N. Korea has nukes, right?

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by joshpoints Quote:

Again, finding delivery systems is not the same as finding chemical weapons.. Yes, I agree that it's damm likely that he has the shells for chem weapons, but that does NOT mean he has any of those weapons assembled, nor does it mean he was in the process, nor does it mean he even has the chemicals to do it.. he USED to, but we don't know for sure if he does NOW..

 

 

Response:

 

Let's see if this makes sense to you Savant. If you were a bad guy (Sadam), I know you're a compassionate guy at heart, even though it doesn't show on this thread sometimes, would it make sense to carry the shells? Why would you carry the illegal chemical weapons shells, without having the chemicals somewhere? Having the shells is enough to break the resolution. Why would you even keep the shells and risk the chance of an attack if you don't have chemicals to hide? Either Sadam is extremely stupid (I don't think he is) or he has something that is worth keeping the shells for. Do you see where I'm coming from? Probably not. You remind me of the philosophers that believe in indeterminism (or randomness). This philosophy believes things just happen. We can't explain events. We can't explain or find links between data because links don't exist according to the indeterminent theory. There are no causal laws with this theory. There is no cause for Sadam having shells, he just has them. It can't be explained. I don't believe in this theory as most people do.

My point is, one does not prove the other.. You even have my statement where I say I agree that it's likely.. but if you want to split hairs (and I think it's prudent to do so).. having a delivery system is not having chemical weapons.. I stand behind my statement..

To answer the question, no.. I would not have those shells .. unless they had some other use.. just like a carving knife in your kitchen is for making dinner, that same knife in someone's chest is a weapon.. does that make any sense?

As far as "indeterminent theory", I don't think I could swallow that as a valid thought process unless I knew more about it.. as you describe it, it sounds pretty flawed to me.. unless they are saying you can't prove future events based on current actions.. like his having the shells means he will use them for chemical weapons.. there is no way to 'know' for sure.. we can only speculate.. If it's really about total randomness in that the shells just were there, no one put them there, they just were.. that I don't buy.. there is way too much cohesion in the univers for that kind of randomness on a standard level.. and I don't think 'most people' would buy into that either.. *shrug*

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by joshpoints Savant, remember that statement history repeats itself? If you don't know history how can you prevent it from repeating itself. I think it is very wise for LWW to look at the past history. Very, Very wise philosophers have made a theory that if the past is known very precisely the future can be predicted. So the more detailed the past is known the more accurate the prediction of the future will be.

To a certian degree I'll agree with this.. The past is a very good indicator of what might come.. and it should be looked at to find warning signs.. And I believe we did that in 91 when we helped Kuwait get rid of the invading Saddam and Iraq.. That still doesn't mean we needed to go in guns blazing when we did.. it means we stopped an evil man like Saddam (in 91) before he had any decent chance of causing the kind of trouble Hitler did.. Now the world keeps an eye on him (and those like him) to keep them in check (hopefully)..

We don't have enough money to build every nation and go into every nation that you listed. There are other reasons but I don't have time to go into them.

Exactly.. but we sure do like the prospect of oil in Iraq.. and getting out from having to have Saudi oil.. right? So, again, it's not about us truely caring about 'just the people', there is more to it.. and to me, that negates any of the professions of how this is all about the people with vehiment denial of other interest, even though those interests were stated long before the war started.. *shrug*

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Here are some more things to think about..

" In 1973, Iraq nationalised all oil companies. By displacing Saddam Hussein and installing a friendly regime, U.S. and British companies would be able to re-enter the country and get a major share of its oil industry."

" Sources said control over Iraq and its oil wealth would allow American firms to manipulate global market prices by deciding on production levels and to keep out countries like India, which is engaged in developing oil fields in that country."

" This ensures that crude oil prices are kept high, as a steep drop is not in the interest of U.S. companies, which have been engaged in deep water exploration, a source said.

"If prices fall, it could jeopardise their deep water exploration, as it would not be viable due to the high costs involved. "

here is the link..

http://in.news.yahoo.com/020923/43/1viab.html

So, India isn't happy about it.. don't they have nukes too?