| Author | Message | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1202 Registered: 3-2002 |
jason, i am also glad that our country is full of unconventional thinkers, thats what makes us great, and i consider myself a member of that group as well. my issue with art is precisely that he doesn't think unconventionally - ie he never varies his opinion or concedes any arguments. | ||
| Jason Wesoky (Wesokyjb)
Junior Member Username: Wesokyjb Post Number: 98 Registered: 1-2003 |
The main thing that separates our country from so many others is our unquestioned confidence in the rule of law. The best modern example is the 2000 election. America accepted the fact that Bush won the election because those most familiar with the rule of law said he was president. I went along with it as did everyone else. The point is that a country so vehement about the rule of law must insist that its government adhere to it, even when entering into a military conflict. The ultimate question regarding this conflict, then, is: were our stated reasons for creating this conflict reasonable or just? Obviously, time will tell. No doubt that, so far, the result has been positive for everyone except those killed in it. Keep in mind, however, that the reasons for entering into the conflict that our government provided to its citizens was the basis upon which support for the conflict was created. For example, if the government said that we are going to battle because we want to control the oil wells, surely the citizens of this country would not have supported the war and would have made such a stink that the war would not have happened. The stated reasons, though, were WMD and terrorism links (two things that threatened America's safety). Thus, if neither of those things actually exist, it seems obvious that our reasons for war were unjust and unreasonable. For a society whose ordinary citizens live and die by the rule of law, we must insist that our government do the same. As a side note, I am glad that I don't think like everyone else. After all, great leaders and great thinkers are people who, by definition, defy convention. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1199 Registered: 3-2002 |
art i am tired of arguing with you, which is why i am no longer trying to come up with cogent logic to attempt to dispute your opinions and maybe change your mind - i realized it doesn't work and won't every work. you are fixated on your opinion of the world despite not having seen much of it first hand. the only non-book reference i have ever heard you mention is your time spent in the army in vietnam - sorry, that just doesn't give you a viable basis for your opinions on the world of today and how america acts in it. so yes i am happy to wallow in my pragmatism. i have a pretty good idea about how the world works, and i too can tell the difference between right and wrong, and i am comfortable with the outcome of this conflict. it works for me and and it even works for you, despite the fact that you don't appreciate it. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1575 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ross: Lie to myself about benefit? What about honesty, morality, and the like? I'm glad to see you are so pragmatic. I'm not. I have alway stood up for right and wrong, and I'm too damn old to change. You're right, there are too few of those who think like me. I'm reminded of the Yale study done in 1964. 98%, that's right 98% of the graduate students, in a test which got wide publicity would torture their fellow students, cause them pain, because someone in authority told them to do so. Study showed we were all good Germans. Not me, not then, not now. Art | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member Username: Ross Post Number: 1198 Registered: 3-2002 |
thank god there are more ernestos, daves and sunnys out there than jasons, randalls and arts. those of you in the latter category can lie to yourselves all you want about the outcome of this war not being beneficial to you, your country, the world, hell, just about everybody except for saddam, chirac, and putin. don't give us the bs answer that the 2000-5000 iraqis who unfortunately died in the conflict, should have stopped us from doing the right thing in iraq. its over, we will find wmd, the oil will flow and the money will rebuild iraq, because it serves our interests in the rest of the middle east for this to happen. so get over it and stop whining. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1546 Registered: 6-2001 |
Sunny: I have no problem putting Bush on trial. If indeed he and his friends lied to us, then there should be some kind of reward for this. It would serve two purposes: 1. Makes sure the next president who had an agenda realized there were consequences to getting caught, and 2. With thousands dead, its the right thing to do. At this point in time, I don't want to hear about the supposed benefits. Maybe, just maybe, somewhwere down the road, those benefits may appear. Given the history of that area, we'll steal the oil, and that will be that. I'll see it when I see it. Art | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 416 Registered: 2-2003 |
We can combat that by cancelling Bush's increased economic aid to other countries and shave off at least 7 billion dollars from the debt per year right off the bat, a number which is rising. Lets keep it all for ourselves. Lets go isolationist and make the world envy or hate us even more. No more costly wars to deal with and we can focus more on homeland security. I don't know about you. I fear getting carjacked more then a threat from a rogue government or terrorist. What do you think the non-voting working class fears the most? Let 'em starve and revolt on their own. Whomever is in charge will always receive praise or blame for the shape of the economy. All the little Enrons out there are doing far more to hurt you then President Bush, in my opinion! Sunny | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1480 Registered: 2-2001 |
Randall, this country is a democracy, but once our elected officials are in office they should do what they know is right not what the polls tell them to do. The official polls are every four years. Ernesto | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 419 Registered: 1-2003 |
Ernesto, Would you describe Bush behavior as "react extremely after something happens"? I don't recall him doing anything to prevent 9/11. This country is supposed to be a democracy, it's a shame that Clinton treated things that way. Maybe he should act more like Bush has running this country.  | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 413 Registered: 2-2003 |
What do we do to stand up for those harmed by our mistakes (for those who lived)? Give them a choice of putting Saddam back in power, electing their own government, or dealing with a US puppet government. Which do you think they will choose? The US has been totally wrong throughout this whole thing. Lets get the Free Oil party started here in the US head by the former Iraqi regime and we'll see who votes for them besides the French on tourist/work visas. Is the world going to put Bush on trial? Are the rest of the nations in the world only concerned enough to make sure a post-Iraq is free, economically stable, and their human rights are returned to them? Don't kid yourself. Sunny | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1545 Registered: 6-2001 |
Without getting everyone into a tizzy, and assuming that we will not find WMD, where is the responsibility for our killing thousands? Those folks, I'm sure, were unwilling to trade their lives for Regime Change, and if my memory serves me correctly, neither were we. Giving the current administration the benefit of the doubt, they made a mistake. What do we do to stand up for those injuried by our "mistake"? If we don't give the administration the benefit of the doubt (and, frankly if this were a courtroom, I could make a very, very good cause for fraud, given the strong statements made by members of the administration regarding 1. The alleged weapons, and 2. their specific knowledge of the whereabouts of those weapons. The basis for such a case would be that the strong statements made to induce us to act, where either knowningly false, or made without an actual basis for making them. Make no doubt about it, those statements were made to get us as a country to act, and it worked. Too bad they were probably false. Art | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1479 Registered: 2-2001 |
Randall, that's hilarious!! LOL You just described typical Clinton, bowing down to public opinion rather than doing the right thing! Ernesto | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1476 Registered: 1-2002 |
 | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 415 Registered: 1-2003 |
Ernesto " The previous administration's policy of doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to protect this country against attacts or potential threats" That is not correct. If you do a search you'll see that Clinton tried to bomb the hell out of Al Quaeda camps. People accused him of starting a false war. Said that the actions weren't necessary, that he was trying to distract people from more important issues (him getting head). T-shirts were made up over it and he was rediculed for the military strikes, so they stopped. Democracy won. People thought action wasn't necessary, so action was stopped. Remember hindsight is 20/20. "Clinton didn't do anything" is the fault of the American people. | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1478 Registered: 2-2001 |
No Jason, it's not better. Inaction in the worst position you can take when it comes do dealing with terrorists and dangerous states. I agree that handing over weapons to Bin Landen's crew in the 80's was a bad move, but the alternative was to send our own troops to prevent Russia from expanding its regime (now, there was REAL regime expansion). There is no excuse for not retaliating hard and fast against those who attacked the US during blow job's tenure. The bottom line is that this world is a better place without Saddam, and the message that the US will no longer tolerate crap from anyone is already paying dividends. The UN is irrelevant, as has historically been so, when the use of force is necessary. They should focus on more humanitarian issues. Ernesto | ||
| Jason Wesoky (Wesokyjb)
Junior Member Username: Wesokyjb Post Number: 97 Registered: 1-2003 |
Sorry, should be 75% of oil proceeds, not net oil profits. | ||
| Jason Wesoky (Wesokyjb)
Junior Member Username: Wesokyjb Post Number: 96 Registered: 1-2003 |
Ernesto, assuming (and this is a big assumption) that you're right that Clinton's administration did nothing to prevent terrorism or respond in the wake of it (sans the several missle attacks and sorties that the right accussed Clinton of using to distract the public's attention from various domestic issues), I'd say doing nothing is better than actively aiding terrorism and oppressive regimes. How soon we forget that Ronny and Bush I were busy handing out missle launchers to Bin Landen and his boyz to help "defeat the Russians" in Afghantistan and that Rummy was having a jolly good time looking the other way while shaking Saddam's hand and patting him on the back. Will the real hypocrites, please stand up, please stand up. Dave, as for alternatives, I, for one, favor diplomacy and deliberation as opposed to jumping to conclusions and hasty short-term fixes that end up being worse in the long run. The White House may not like the fact that the UN works slowly and tries to resolve things peacfully, but that's the best approach to fostering world peace and unaninimoty (sp?). Remember that the Founding Fathers bifurcated Congress to make sure that government moved slowly (the House would pass things fast without a lot of thought, while the Senate would take its time and deliberate). This system has worked well here, and it should be trusted to do the same in the UN. Moreover, France and Russia are no different than those persons that you or I disagree with in Congress, depending on the day. For me, France and Russia are analagous to DeLay and Hastert. For you, they may seem like Kennedy or Kerry. If you want something beyond letting the UN handle it, here's my uneducated and inexperienced solution, FWIW (which is nothing): Assign three UN member countries with experience in oil production whom the whole world does not hate right now to educate and help establish companies in Iraq to produce and sell oil. The money to fund this would come from the UN and the UN would assign two countries (maybe France and the US) to oversee the project to make sure the funds are being used properly and progress is being made. Require monthly reports to the UN on progress using specific guidlines and goals (i.e. amt of oil produced, number of persons employed, etc.). 75% of net oil profits would go to building infrastructure (schools, buildings, power, etc.). The other 25% would be used to reimburse the UN and the participating countries for the expenses associated with the project (i.e. raw materials, oil wells, labor, etc.) | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1474 Registered: 1-2002 |
Yes, Art, I agree. Have a good weekend, all. Especially you, Sunny!!! | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1543 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: YOu're right I should have waited, but I couldn't resist. But, it has been over a month, and nothing has shown up yet. I would think that we can definitely say there were no such weapons in Iraqi if we don't find anything by the middle of June. We're adding another 2000 people to search for these alleged weapons, and they should be able to locate them, if indeed they existed. Do you agree? Art | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 411 Registered: 2-2003 |
He said, she did, he didn't, why did they... Can't get over the fact that politicians lie and sometimes the US and its government don't take the moral high ground and we're less idealistic then we seem to be, huh? Your wasting your energy if you want to know WHY we did it rather then celebrating what it means BECAUSE we did it. Good luck in your quest for truth and justice. Note to self: Add Dave and Ernesto to Christmas Card list. If ever in same locale, feed them as much food and drink they can take and polish their F-cars. Sunny | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1469 Registered: 1-2002 |
Ernesto:  Art: how about waiting just a wee bit longer before you unilaterally declare there are no WMD in Iraq? As if you'd know!! LOL! Jason:  please re-read this portion of my previous post>>> "All the liberals love to bash Bush, but have offered NO alternate and/or better solution for Iraq. All they have left is b!tching about Bush's speech on an aircraft carrier. They are their own worst enemas, er, enemies!<<< and feel free to offer your own solution instead of just b!tching about Bush et al. You too, Art. Waiting! | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1476 Registered: 2-2001 |
You're right Arthur. The previous administration's policy of doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to protect this country against attacts or potential threats was a much better alternative. Letting rougue countries amass weapons and harbor/finance terrorists is a great idea, under which they all flourished and expanded during 1992-2000, as is vastly cutting our military / intelligence budgets, as occurred during 1992-2000. We are finally on the right path to eliminate these wackos, we have people saying that its about oil or empire expansion. Ridiculous. Ernesto | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1542 Registered: 6-2001 |
The conservatives will put up with anything to justify their beliefs. Bennett is a prime example of their not being able to to understand their inconsistency. It is about the oil. We blew up their stuff. We blew it up based upon a faulty assumption (WMD apparently didn't exist, except in the minds of Bush, Wolfowitz, et al). Why shouldn't we then repair what we did in error? It's that old idea of being responsible for our behavior: we made a mistake, we should fix it. Isn't going to happen. What will probably happen is that either France or the Russians will veto any resolutions eliminating the sanctions. We will then be in the position of either defying the UN, or not getting the money. Guess where my money is on that one? Brought to you by our friends the radical right. Lastly, it turns out that Cheney lobbied for selling the North Koreans a nuclear plant. Man, oh man, what next with these guys? I wouldn't be surprised that bin laden was given a free past by these guys to attend a family weding in Saudi Arabria. Art | ||
| Kal (Suprakal)
New member Username: Suprakal Post Number: 18 Registered: 4-2003 |
War about oil? I thought it was about eliminating all the Weapons of Mass destruction? Oh sheesh they havn't found any! DOH! He must be hiding or has destroyed the large amounts he had? Oh but there is not even a trace of that! Oh okay it wasn't about oil and it wasn't about the weapons of mass destruction it was about terrorisim. Hmm no evidence points Sadam to terrorisim in the US, an Sadam's regime shows no evidence to have tie's with Al'quaida. Oh okay so it isn't about oil, it isn't about weapons of mass destruction, and it isn't about terrorisim... its about saving the people from this horrible regime. While there is no argument that this regime was in fact horrible, it isn't like America is going out of their way to prevent innocent people from suffering. Infact we have stood quite idle while the African holocaust has taken place. Between the deaths and famine I think the numbers excede what 20 million people now? I think all that is left is speculation by us as to what this war was really about...one thing is for sure it has done a good job creating extreme contempt from the rest of the world. | ||
| Jere Dunham (Questioner)
Member Username: Questioner Post Number: 590 Registered: 1-2003 |
Jason, What was Iraq and the UN going to use to produce, and distribute their oil??? Do they have the capability to do this without outside assistance from someone like Halliburton??? Even if they had brought in someone else to help, they still could not do it on their own and an outside company would have to assist. They do not provide this service for free. They help produce and distribute and get a fair return for their participation. I believe you would want to get paid if it were your company doing the work, wouldn't you??? Helping them produce and distribute the oil and getting paid for it is far better for the Iraqi people than the UN sitting on their thumbs trying to decide how they are going to administer this problem and doing nothing in the meantime. It gets the oil flowing again and producing revenue to help stabilize the oilfields. Now, after a stable government is in place (if that is really possible) and the oilfields have stabilized, if the US does not exit the oilfields, then I too have a problem with that. Short term help to stop a long term problem. It has to be given time to work. If we move out today, with everything in shambles, how long until someone will become another dictator??? | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1473 Registered: 2-2001 |
Please explain how the war was about oil? The USA is not expropriating, consiscating, or in any way taking the oil for its own benefit. They are setting up an TEMPORARY structure that will allow Iraq to generate revenues from the (international) sale of oil until they are capable of handling it themselves. Saying that the war is about oil is a very ignorant and simplilstic answer to a much bigger question. I'd rather have a President that DEFENDS his country against aggression and potential dangers, than one that just sits by idle getting his cigar sucked while our embassies, battleships and homeland skyscrapers get the hell bombed out of them. Ernesto | ||
| Jason Wesoky (Wesokyjb)
Junior Member Username: Wesokyjb Post Number: 94 Registered: 1-2003 |
First off, the personal attacks are real effective. Second, I don't complain that Gore lost the election, and nothing in my post suggests as much. In fact, I am one of the first "liberals" to tell others to move on and get over it. Ernesto, I agree that what matters is who gets the proceeds of the oil, but those who control the oil also control the proceeds. I highly doubt that Haliburton is going to have no control over the profits from the oil. The most important aspect of this resolution is that before its introduction, the UN was going to help the Iraqi's control, produce and distribute the oil, with proceeds not going to private companies but to fund humanitarian efforts and build infrastructure. Now, however, it will be more difficult to follow the money trail and there will be less accountability for waste, fraud, etc. My point is that this war was about oil and that I don't appreciate being told by my elected officials and those unelected and unacountable persons in the administration that the oil is going to be controlled by the Iraqis when the intent all along was quite the opposite. Again, I'd take a lie about a blow job over a lie about international policy any day. | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Intermediate Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 1204 Registered: 7-2002 |
There is no way to win an argument with a liberal. If the US is granted the contracts we are greedy. If we give them away we are squandering opportunity. If we take the contracts and do the work for free we are wasting the tax payers money. Of course we want to control the oil. First off we invested $75BB in this thing so we kinda want it to all work out. Secondly, Iraq has ZERO gov't now so who do you think should control the oil? A poor civilian and his donkey? I am sure Haliburton will get paid for the contracts and they should. THey don't work for free. Yes some of the oil profits will be used to pay us for the services, but I imagine a large portion of the $$ will find its way back to Iraq and its just purpose. There is no way public sentiment would allow us to just keep their money and oil. I really don't think we want that either. We want a stable country which is good for everyone so we are seeing that it happens. Maybe we could send all our own welfare recipients over there to work for free and help rebuild Iraq....wait that would be taking jobs from Iraqi's.... | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1467 Registered: 1-2002 |
Jason, under the category of "recto-cranial inversion"....do you find your name listed? Bottom line: Ernesto is 100% correct. Follow the money. It will stay in Iraq, where it is needed by people Hussein purposely starved so he could build 42 palaces within 30 square miles for himself, and so he could steal $1,000,000,000 (that's ONE BILLION) in CASH from Iraq's bank just for himself. I sure hope the tome of your post doesn't suggest you support him? Get over the fact that Gore lost the election & move on, OK? All the liberals love to bash Bush, but have offered NO alternate and/or better solution for Iraq. All they have left is b!tching about Bush's speech on an aircraft carrier. They are their own worst enemas, er, enemies! | ||
| DJ (Godfather)
New member Username: Godfather Post Number: 35 Registered: 11-2002 |
Well said Ernesto! | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1472 Registered: 2-2001 |
Forget who controls the oil, its who gets the proceeds of the sale of oil. Iraq will receive the proceeds of the sales to reconstruct and invest. It was better before where the oil went to build huge palaces while the people starved? I don't think so. A threat has been eliminated. The people are free. Other potentially terrorist countries now know we are not kidding around, unlike before under Mr. Blow Job where they bomb our battleships, world trade center, marine barracks, etc and we did nothing. What message did that send out? These people just kept escalating their attacks because they knew our ex President would do nothing. We did the right thing. Of course American companies should be at the head of the list to operate in Iraq, we sacrificed the most. Ernesto | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2524 Registered: 2-2001 |
LOL are you surprised by the awful state of international politics ? | ||
| Jason Wesoky (Wesokyjb)
Junior Member Username: Wesokyjb Post Number: 93 Registered: 1-2003 |
Check out washingonpost.com and/or cnn.com this morning. W. and his administration have proposed a resolution to take control of Iraqi oil until a stable, permanent Iraqi gov't is in place. That should take about 10 years or so. Oh yeah, and Haliburton's contract gives it exclusive rights to develop and produce Iraqi oil. And the administration had us convinced the Iraqi people would control their own oil. Lying about a blow job seems much less important now, doesn't it? |