[Athens]

thought Zimphire/Kevin was band from the Politics Lounge.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Sosa

Too bad the US didn't do the same thing. Thanks to the fanatics in the White House (and other fanatics who voted for them) the US is directly responsible for the loss of thousands of lives in an unjust war. It is the US who must make a statement to the world, by getting the hell out of Iraq. If it means losing the oil to the new rulers of Iraq (whoever they are, it will be more democratic than the puppet government now) so be it. We have no right to that oil. If you are willing to kill for the oil, don't complain when some of these Muslim nationalists come looking for you.

I believe you are completely mistaken when saying we have no right to that oil. The Iraqis and the Saudis and whatever nations we purchase oil from determine who they will sell to. Not you. Not Osama bin Laden.

They established the price. We agree to the price. Just as though you go to the store to buy milk. Of course you don't have any right to that milk UNTIL YOU BUY IT. And then when you do business with that merchant over time you form a valued buyer/seller relationship.

We had ongoing relationships with the OPEC nations which provided for our oil needs and we were happy to continue with those arrangements just as they were. They sold us oil. We bought oil.

Until the 9/11 attack occurred when Osama bin Laden showed us he was a force not to be ignored or taken lightly.

And as we embarked to Afghanistan and the Middle East to prosecute the WoT, two months after September 11, 2001...

"Osama bin Laden stated in December 2001 that incapacitating the U.S. economy should be the primary objective for al Qaeda fighters, and disrupting the oil market is...likely to have more lasting effects on the economy than dramatic 9/11-style operations, and (such attacks) are easier to pull off."

We wondered for months why the President would suddenly shift US military forces from Afghanistan to invade Iraq so quickly. We now know it was because of OBL's threat. He told us what he intended to do and we prevented him from doing it. His continuing efforts to achieve HIS plans have met with our continued efforts to protect the oil supplies there ever since.

And Sosa, using your greatest wisdom and discernment, please tell everyone here what your VERY BEST counsel would have been in this situation.

I expect and everyone else in this country has a right to expect the President of the United States to provide for your family and my family and all the other families in America by doing what is in his power to do to protect us and our way of life.

To do nothing in the face of Osama bin Laden's clear and present danger would be like another 9/11. And it very well could have happened.

For you to argue past this point is not an indication of a desire for enlightenment but a desire to engage in scrapping. Something I wish not to do.

EDIT: It should be emphasized for those looking for every reason to demonize their nation's leadership, that the United States pays the market rate for the oil we get from the Middle East. We have always bought the oil we get from there.

The oil related reason behind the Iraq invasion was NOT to take the oil, but to prevent it from being taken from us by OBL.

We are safeguarding the flow of oil purchased by all the nations in the world, from al Qaeda attack. But, we are PRIMARILY interested in protecting our own oil supplies.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Athens

thought Zimphire/Kevin was band from the Politics Lounge.

I believe you are correct.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by mojo2

We had ongoing relationships with the OPEC nations which provided for our oil needs and we were happy to continue with those arrangements just as they were.

Until 9/11 when Osama bin Laden showed us he was a force not to be ignored or taken lightly.

And as we embarked on the WoT to prosecute that war two months after 9/11...

"Osama bin Laden stated in December 2001 that incapacitating the U.S. economy should be the primary objective for al Qaeda fighters, and disrupting the oil market is...likely to have more lasting effects on the economy than dramatic 9/11-style operations, and (such attacks) are easier to pull off."

And your greatest wisdom and discernment, your VERY BEST counsel would have been to do what?

I expect and everyone else in this country has a right to expect the President of the United States to provide for your family and my family and all the other families in America by doing what is in his power to do to protect us and our way of life.

To do nothing in the face of Osama bin Laden's clear and present danger would be like another 9/11. And it very well could have happened.

For you to argue past this point is not an indication of a desire for enlightenment but a desire to engage in scrapping. Something I wish not to do.

EDIT: It should be emphasized for those looking for every reason to demonize their nation's leadership, that the United States pays the market rate for the oil we get from the Middle East. We have always bought the oil we get from there.

The oil related reason behind the Iraq invasion was NOT to take the oil, but to prevent it from being taken from us by OBL.

We are safeguarding the flow of oil purchased by all the nations in the world, from al Qaeda attack. But, we are PRIMARILY interested in protecting our own oil supplies.

Perhaps consider that it was/is the "american" way of life that has gotten your country into this trouble to begin with. Regardless of anything OBL is responsible for. It was the choice of the US to invade. Can the US really keep bring up 9/11 as an excuse for everything?
The rest of the world didn't buy that arguement, and it appears that more than half of your country doesn't any more either.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Perhaps consider that it was/is the "american" way of life that has gotten your country into this trouble to begin with. Regardless of anything OBL is responsible for. It was the choice of the US to invade. Can the US really keep bring up 9/11 as an excuse for everything?
The rest of the world didn't buy that arguement, and it appears that more than half of your country doesn't any more either.

Nicko, welcome to this discussion. If you are here to beat the US and espouse your views as to how bad the US is/was I will allow you that victory early.

We were not perfect. We made mistakes for which we have already dearly paid and will continue to pay in any numbers of ways some we can't yet know.

If you continue here it will only be with an open mind and a desire to learn something you didn't know before you arrived. Agreed?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by sminch

as much as i'd like ot respond to everything else that's happened since i left yesterday, i'll just respond to this one thing which has been bugging me...



no, i didn't. i'm not from the US or any other part of the "coalition of the willing". the actions of my government amounted to nothing more than telling bush to get a grip.

sminch

Off course you haven't, you are from New Zealand. My reply was directed at someone from the US, so why do you feel to be meant with that?

But even if you were from the US and a possible voter and taxpayer... and therefore responsible for the actions of the government, since it's for the people and through the people, the question remains if you deserve to be punished for the collateral damage in Iraq through retaliation, revenge..

I don't think that to be the case, because Iraq had a brutal dictatorship through which a minority oppressed a majority, so that the case can be made that the invasion is not an invasion in order to kill iraqis, to enslave or to drive them out, but in order to help the majority gain their freedom from the previous oppression.

Taliesin

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

mojo2--
No, only if you're attacked first, and even then usually only if you have no other alternative, such as fleeing. Did Iraq attack us? Did they pose a realistic threat to us? Were we out of alternatives? The answers are no, no, and no.



Wow.

First, our country is not in mortal danger due to high oil prices. Our lifestyle might be, but so what? Our country has survived not having cars in the past. In fact, our founders didn't even imagine cars. The ability to sit on your ass and use the drive through or go to Walmart are not important.

Second, there are alternatives to oil.

Third, the people of the US are no more important than other people anywhere else. Our lives are not so valuable that it is acceptable by any standard to kill others and conquer them when there is no actual threat to us, and we merely want to preserve our wasteful materialism. You've just said that you're willing to kill people for the sake of our economy. That you'd shoot a foreign child in the head for a penny off the price of gas.

Basically, you're the worst sort of human being and you're exposed as such. I think we're done.

What did the financial professionals or government leaders or professor tell you about $200/bbl oil and the resulting depression?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

He has also argued in the past that even though the pretense for invading Iraq was mistruths/lies/incorrect (depending on how you want to look at them), this is morally okay because we are securing oil for our country.

Mojo, do you really think this is a Christian way of looking at things? Wait, why am I even bothering? He won't respond to this question... maybe if I flag it..

HEY MOJO! THIS WAS A QUESTION, YOU SHOULD RESPOND TO THIS. ABOVE. THE LAST PARAGRAPH. YEAH, THAT ONE. No, hold off on another rant about Osama and $200 oil.. stay on task buddy, stay with it. You can do it!

Now, deal with the backlog of points and questions people have asked you that you haven't even acknowledged.

Maybe you don't want to? Well then, why don't you post your stuff on http://IHeartGeorgeBush.com where you won't have to deal with any dissenting opinions. Yeah, just tune us out. That's a good strategy too.

One of the things I find admirable and very much streamlined is the way Islamic governments can look at the Quran to know how to rule. The laws and the morality are both right there. However, our government isn't that simple. And that is both blessing and curse.

I take it that you are astounded that the president MAY have lied about not knowing for sure if there really were or weren't WMD's in Iraq. If it means anything to you at all, I don't believe he might have been lying to the American people as much as he may have been lying to those who would like to see harm befall our great nation.

But I don't think he was lying.

You can be really funny and appealing at times. (re: Flagging the post! )

I WISH there was a better melding of Christian values in our everyday life. I am curious as to how well Islamic governments do in this regard. What are the little ways that islamic rule works really well and how does it not?

Yes, you really make me smile and laugh out loud, sometimes.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by sminch

i'm confused - you're talking about how osama et al are winning, that we know what they want and what it will do, but none of this is particularly surprising, is it? they don't like the west - did we not know this a few years ago? did the earlier attacks not clue you in? did we not stop and think about how invading iraq will look to the muslim world? how this was playing into his hands?

oh yeah, that's right - some of us did, and we didn't join your coalition. we were "with the terrorists", if i remember correctly.

so why the hell was iraq invaded? all this has done is turn a reasonably stable (albeit nasty (yes, we know)) country into a hotbed of terrorism and a recruiting ground for osama and his mates. wmd? links to al qaeda? a threat to the west? iraq was nothing, and these reasons were utter bollocks. were, because at least two of those three are now entirely correct, thanks to your gung ho, half arsed attempts to get your way.

of course, we were siding with the terrorists when we didn't support your crazy war, and now it's our fault that this war has turned out to be (shock!) the bad idea we always said it was. and now we get this reaction, and this is exactly what pisses me off about people of your ilk - full of piss and vinegar when you're looking for a simple answer to your problems (ie. don't like osama, can't find osama, attack another country instead!), then whiny little blame-merchants when things go wrong. grow a pair and reap what you've sown.

global recession? mate, if there is one it looks to me like your actions brought it on so don't try to find a scapegoat. and if there is as recession, it'll suck but it's hardly the first and it won't be the last. maybe it'll be for the best, anyway - we'll be forced to stop relying on oil so much, get the hell out of the middle east as a result, and osama will lose a hell of a lot of his leverage.

the cpt is right - you're more concerned about money than anything else, maintaining your lifestyle at the expense of others' lives. very christian of you. but then again, i guess they're dirty foreign muslims, so they don't count, right? that'll learn 'em for being the same religoin as a guy who attacked us!

sminch

Once a man realizes there is a question he can not answer it is only a matter of time before that man searches for the answer.

I wonder, what would happen to NZ if the US was denied the oil from the Middle East? How would YOUR life be personally affected?

If you say, "nothing" or "not at all," then that will conclude our discussion because there will be no more need for me to explain anything if it will have no impact either way.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

RIRedinPA: I suggest talking to a toaster rather than Mojo. Me, I'm getting more mileage out of my trusty mop!

I don't know if I am happy or not that your mop gets such good mileage. No broom, huh?

Hey Mojo, how about trying to respond to what people actually say for once? Quit with the shuck and jive.

I'm feeling a bit more philosophical than I usually do.

P.S. Do you sell Buick LeSabres in your spare time?

hahaha! No. But, that's a nice American car good for a family! Roomy. Pretty safe. Comfy. Stylish.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Um, yeah, no argument there. Why don't you ask Bush why he's losing support on the war.
(...)
Reread what you have typed. "We have secured the ability to purchase oil" which requires us to station troops in the heart of the Arab world. And my ideas are the height of arrogance. As I said, apparently the dimentia has set in.

Are you incredulous because you believe we merely TAKE the oil from Iraq???

That is NOT the case, you know. Right?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Athens

thought Zimphire/Kevin was band from the Politics Lounge.

you mean "banned". No offense Athens, I like your posts, but you ought to spell check your posts, and confirm that you are using the proper word with your dictionary. Control + Apple + D on words.

Otherwise, you appear dumber than you are.

[besson3c]

How is stealing oil from Iraq and looking after our own self-interests at the expense of others a Christian thing to do in your mind, Mojo?

Someday I'll figure you out Mojo, you are a strange dude. And this is coming from somebody who most would consider strange as well...

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

you mean "banned". No offense Athens, I like your posts, but you ought to spell check your posts, and confirm that you are using the proper word with your dictionary. Control + Apple + D on words.

Otherwise, you appear dumber than you are.

I think he has a condition that he can't help which makes spelling really tough on the guy. But you had no way of knowing. So, we just kinda judge or misjudge him on content. Athens isn't as bad as I sometimes think he is.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

How is stealing oil from Iraq and looking after our own self-interests at the expense of others a Christian thing to do in your mind, Mojo?

Someday I'll figure you out Mojo, you are a strange dude. And this is coming from somebody who most would consider strange as well...

How do you figure we are STEALING THEIR oil???

They were selling us the oil before the invasion. They are selling us the oil now.
We paid market price then. We pay market price now.
They profited from selling us the oil then. They profit from selling us the oil now.

The Bible has no problem with our buying oil or them selling oil.

I don't get why people are upset unless they are under the MISTAKEN impression that we are stealing the oil. We are NOT stealing the oil. We have NEVER stolen the oil.

We are there PROTECTING the oil supplies so no one *cough-OBL* can turn off the faucet and destroy the US and then the whole western world.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mojo2

How do you figure we are STEALING THEIR oil???

They were selling us the oil before the invasion. They are selling us the oil now.
We paid market price then. We pay market price now.
They profited from selling us the oil then. They profit from selling us the oil now.

The Bible has no problem with our buying oil or them selling oil.

I don't get why people are upset unless they are under the MISTAKEN impression that we are stealing the oil. We are NOT stealing the oil. We have NEVER stolen the oil.

We are there PROTECTING the oil supplies so no one *cough-OBL* can turn off the faucet and destroy the US and then the whole western world.

Mojo, we've been through this before, I don't feel like getting into this again. You have your reality tightly spun to suit what you want to believe, I aim for a broad perspective which is constantly shifting (and possibly flawed at any given time, which I'm able to acknowledge as it is pointed out to me). There is nothing to gain from debating you, your mind is made up and there is nothing that I could say that would matter.

I take blame for coaxing you into this, I was hoping that this conversation would have worked a little differently with a little less me trying to convince you in a futile effort that your perception is skewed, and a little more of you discussing what I put on the table. It appears the only way you will even acknowledge what I have to say is if I very aggressively put you on the defense like you are here.

Reading these sorts of threads and investing your emotional energy into them is exhausting. There are already so many of them (e.g. Rob threads, James123455 threads, some Zimphire, Matlock, etc.), I figure: why start another?

[Sosa]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I believe you are completely mistaken when saying we have no right to that oil. The Iraqis and the Saudis and whatever nations we purchase oil from determine who they will sell to. Not you. Not Osama bin Laden.

A seller has the power to sell oil to whomever he chooses. The buyer has no right to that oil until a contract is formed. I'm not aware that Iraq breached any contract to sell oil to the US. Even then, this is hardly a reason to go to war, as countries break agreements all the time, even the US.

We wondered for months why the President would suddenly shift US military forces from Afghanistan to invade Iraq so quickly. We now know it was because of OBL's threat. He told us what he intended to do and we prevented him from doing it. His continuing efforts to achieve HIS plans have met with our continued efforts to protect the oil supplies there ever since.

Are you saying the Iraq was in danger of falling into Osama's hands? That Iraq would then stop selling oil to the US? Don't be silly Mojo2, Saddam hated Osama and Muslim fundamentalists. He was desperately trying to sell oil to the world to rebuild his shattered country. Stating that the US invaded Iraq to protect its oil fields from Osama has to be the lamest excuse for the war I've heard so far.

And Sosa, using your greatest wisdom and discernment, please tell everyone here what your VERY BEST counsel would have been in this situation.

"Terrorists" are criminal elements that should be dealt with police action, not military invasions (although Afghanistan was a unique situation). I would have continued the international manhunt for Osama and continued the isolation of Saddam, although not the inhumane embargo on medicine.

I expect and everyone else in this country has a right to expect the President of the United States to provide for your family and my family and all the other families in America by doing what is in his power to do to protect us and our way of life.

When Bush invaded Iraq he was not protecting my way of life. He was attempting to impose our way of life to a foreign people in their land. That is wrong and those people can be expected to resist with violence.

To do nothing in the face of Osama bin Laden's clear and present danger would be like another 9/11. And it very well could have happened.

You, like Bush, keep confusing two separate issues, Osama and Iraq. No one is arguing nothing should be done about Osama, but invading Iraq actually benefited him by providing him with another excuse to attack us and plenty of new recruits. Why you cannot see this is beyond me.

For you to argue past this point is not an indication of a desire for enlightenment but a desire to engage in scrapping. Something I wish not to do.

You are wrong on so many levels I have to wonder about your educational background.

The oil related reason behind the Iraq invasion was NOT to take the oil, but to prevent it from being taken from us by OBL.

I cannot see this other than a bad joke. Hussein would have massacred Osama and his followers had they attempted anything in Iraq. He was good at that. He was desparate to sell his oil.

We are safeguarding the flow of oil purchased by all the nations in the world, from al Qaeda attack. But, we are PRIMARILY interested in protecting our own oil supplies.

No, you are not protecting oil from anywhere. Oil comes from many places, not just Iraq. Production of oil in Iraq still has not reached prewar levels, so you actually are responsible for the increase in the price of oil by being reducing quantity. I doubt that the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the French, or the Germans, and many others wanted you to protect their oil in Iraq.

[besson3c]

Sosa,

Excellent points, all of them.

This is sort of along the lines of how I've debated all of this with Mojo in the past. He is certain to respond with his usual rhetoric, increasing his volume, not acknowledging what you have said here, and forcing people to become really aggressive before he even reacts to something questioning his logic.

My advice is to not waste your time with him. I like him, but it's just too much work having these sorts of conversations with him.

[Sosa]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I take it that you are astounded that the president MAY have lied about not knowing for sure if there really were or weren't WMD's in Iraq. If it means anything to you at all, I don't believe he might have been lying to the American people as much as he may have been lying to those who would like to see harm befall our great nation.

But I don't think he was lying.

Bush and his henchmen repeatedly stated WMD were in Iraq and they would be found! Are you lying too now Mojo2? Bush lied and thousands have died.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Mojo, we've been through this before, I don't feel like getting into this again. You have your reality tightly spun to suit what you want to believe, I aim for a broad perspective which is constantly shifting (and possibly flawed at any given time, which I'm able to acknowledge as it is pointed out to me). There is nothing to gain from debating you, your mind is made up and there is nothing that I could say that would matter.

I take blame for coaxing you into this, I was hoping that this conversation would have worked a little differently with a little less me trying to convince you in a futile effort that your perception is skewed, and a little more of you discussing what I put on the table. It appears the only way you will even acknowledge what I have to say is if I very aggressively put you on the defense like you are here.

Reading these sorts of threads and investing your emotional energy into them is exhausting. There are already so many of them (e.g. Rob threads, James123455 threads, some Zimphire, Matlock, etc.), I figure: why start another?

If I asked you to suspend your reality and truths so I could engage you in discussions about Canada being geographically located on the Equator, if we talked of 2+2 = 5 and if water boiled at 0ºC, then we could also discuss a differing reality about Iraq and the oil.

It is true and the only room for compromise I have comes from the 1% possibility that I may have misread and misinterpreted the signs, many signs from many quarters, all of them unrelated.

I am invested in nothing but accurate reportage and analysis and bringing my best efforts here to this forum for the benefit of most.

There might be other things about which I could find compromise but this is too important. This is a fundamental truth that goes to the heart of too much that affects every one of us and it is possible that simply because no one has been able to get the word to enough people or to get through people's ******** filter, that they are going along with the wrong impression of things and are crucifying a president they should at LEAST have some compassion for.

But I think he would settle for simply quiet, begrudging support from a nation which finally woke up to the fact that invading Iraq WAS a vital and necessary service performed for all of us and, well, you know the rest.

Here's a table from PARADE MAGAZINE (OCT 2, 2005) which talks about oil and where we are TODAY and what the currently rising prices mean to us TODAY. Any event could change this significantly.

Where Will We Feel the Pain?

Besides transportation, rising oil costs will drive up other prices.

•Growing food. Our agricultural system uses as much energy (such as gasoline and other petroleum products) each year as the nation of France.
•Buying food. Transportation costs may catch up to your plate; most of our food is shipped more than 1000 miles.
•Shipping costs. Bye-bye, free shipping? The costs of transporting basic materials and finished products can raise the prices of everything from clothes to kitchen appliances.
Heating Your Home. The Department of Energy says heating fuel prices could jump 21% this winter.

The 5 Greatest Risks To Our Oil Supply

1. Collapse of Saudi Arabia, through a coup against the royal family or destruction of oil fields.
2. Political instability in Venezuela or other major oil-producing nations—or another U.S. war.
3. Natural disaster, such as a hurricane or an earthquake.
4. Terrorism or accidents that destroy a refinery or major oil pipeline.
5. Increased competition from China and India.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Sosa

Bush and his henchmen repeatedly stated WMD were in Iraq and they would be found! Are you lying too now Mojo2? Bush lied and thousands have died.

If I have evidence (the name, "Sosa") to believe you are Hispanic and I tell someone here that you are Hispanic but I find out that you misled me and that you are not Hispanic, am I the liar?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Sosa

A seller has the power to sell oil to whomever he chooses. The buyer has no right to that oil until a contract is formed. I'm not aware that Iraq breached any contract to sell oil to the US. Even then, this is hardly a reason to go to war, as countries break agreements all the time, even the US.

Please don't make up imaginary conditions to prop up your argument. The relationships between the countries and the oil companies and the buyers and sellers are not new. They were of long standing and they existed before you were born and certainly before 9/11. They sold it. We bought it. The paperwork was done however they did it. No one twisted their arm. They like doing business with US. They have no reason NOT to do business with US. We are their biggest customer. We want them to be happy and healthy and they want US to be happy and healthy.

Are you saying the Iraq was in danger of falling into Osama's hands? That Iraq would then stop selling oil to the US? Don't be silly Mojo2, Saddam hated Osama and Muslim fundamentalists. He was desperately trying to sell oil to the world to rebuild his shattered country. Stating that the US invaded Iraq to protect its oil fields from Osama has to be the lamest excuse for the war I've heard so far.

No. The limits of your imagination force you to promote ridiculous scenarios as though they were mine and then you take great pleasure in swatting them down. This brings you satisfaction only because you know it is the only easy swatting you might do.

Sosa, I do recognize your dilemma. A need to vindicate your anger. But the anger you feel is not because of the truths of this matter which I bring to your attention. I dod not contend that al Qaeda was in danger of taking over Iraq. Did Osama bin Laden have to defeat the mighty US military to bring down the symbols of it's economic power? Please think without anger and with a cooler head your reason might prevail. For those who have truly been interested in learning the truth of these things the pages of the P/L forum are smattered with example after example of Saddam contradicting your best knowledge! In the reader's mind, when he or she asks herself whom she might best believe: Sosa who says, "Saddam hated Muslim fundamentalists." Or the many accounts from reputable publications dozens of which have been linked here which show Saddam paying the families of Islamic fundamentalist Suicide bomber families $10 - $25,000 and where Saddam on several occasions tried, unsuccessfully to appeal to the Muslims in the ME to rise up in jihad against the Great Satan America before BOTH wars against him? Or how about the very quiet, but very firmly established communications and relationship between Saddam and the Taliban and OBL?

If someone were going to choose between YOUR knowledge and the knowledge of national newspapers, who do you think is more credible?

"Terrorists" are criminal elements that should be dealt with police action, not military invasions (although Afghanistan was a unique situation). I would have continued the international manhunt for Osama and continued the isolation of Saddam, although not the inhumane embargo on medicine.

Then, maybe we should send members of the Miami Police Department to Baghdad and they will take care of the problem with the terrorists there? Of course, the reality is that coalition soldiers and law enforcement officers are being blown up and killed by snipers every day and while police work is necessary and certainly IS and should be part of the effort there, I can't imagine you are saying that armed troops should leave and be replaced by police officers only. And, as far as the 'inhumane embargo on medicine' was concerned, you must have a marvelous way of avoiding being touched by the raindrops of knowledge that come down on most everyone else, but seem to have left you dry.

The UN oil for food program was designed to make sure the people got relief from the sanctions imposed on Saddam. However, he was able to subvert the program's intent somewhat and skimmed money 'off the top' (or "under the table") such that much of the money that was supposed to go to his people to buy medicines and food, instead, went to his private warehouses which coalition forces have discovered jam packed with dollars...millions of US dollars or other riches. All from what he stole from his people via the UN OIL FOR FOOD program designed to buy food and medicine.

When Bush invaded Iraq he was not protecting my way of life. He was attempting to impose our way of life to a foreign people in their land. That is wrong and those people can be expected to resist with violence.

Do you think so little of the freedoms you enjoy in this country that you consider our removing the oppression so that the Iraqis can enjoy those same freedoms, an IMPOSITION???

There are 12,000,000 people around the world who are FREE citizens of their nations who lived under tyranny and under the thumb of oppressive governments. Those people are free thanks to President Bush. Many of them have now voted for the first time in their lives. Most of them enjoy what you seemingly take for granted, Sosa. There are several good things, important things that have resulted from the invasion. And as intelligent as you are I know you are able to name most of them. In this very thread I have posted (more than once, in fact), some links to articles that would really make you the envy of your friends. But you will have to read the articles first before they might display this new found envy.

You, like Bush, keep confusing two separate issues, Osama and Iraq. No one is arguing nothing should be done about Osama, but invading Iraq actually benefited him by providing him with another excuse to attack us and plenty of new recruits. Why you cannot see this is beyond me.

This is something I must admit you are seing correctly. The war COULD have been prosecuted better. Yet, if we had sat there, after he had TOLD US he was going to attack the oil supplies for President Bush to have done nothing to prevent his attack would have been like allowing OBL yet ONE MORE 9/11 caliber of attack on us and President Bush would have been thrown from office. Then you would have Dick Cheney as president. LOL!

You are wrong on so many levels I have to wonder about your educational background.

Sosa, I find that educational credentials are all well and good as far as they go. Here's a quotation I hope you'll like.

"When we see persons of worth, we should think of equaling them; when we see persons of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves."
Confucius

I cannot see this other than a bad joke. Hussein would have massacred Osama and his followers had they attempted anything in Iraq. He was good at that. He was desparate to sell his oil.

Al Qaeda can blend in and you would never know they are amongst you until it is too late. Al Qaeda does not have to be amongst you at all to attack you if they come from outside your borders.

Did you happen to catch the announcement the other day by President Bush, of the 10 different terrorist attacks the US military police, security or whatever, have prevented since 9/11/2001?

Some of them were AT SEA. Attempts on oil tankers.

No, you are not protecting oil from anywhere. Oil comes from many places, not just Iraq. Production of oil in Iraq still has not reached prewar levels, so you actually are responsible for the increase in the price of oil by being reducing quantity. I doubt that the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the French, or the Germans, and many others wanted you to protect their oil in Iraq.

The oil is safer because we are there. Once we leave it will be the job of the Iraqi military and security forces to protect the oil. You should hope they do a good job.

[olePigeon]

Mojo's already made up his mind. No matter what happens (even if the party he follows instigates it) it's always the other side's fault.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Mojo's already made up his mind. No matter what happens (even if the party he follows instigates it) it's always the other side's fault.

PROVE that I should believe your POV is the truth. Don't give me emotional arguments. Use documentation and logic. Show me credible sources. Multiple sources saying the same thing but in different ways (NOT appeals to emotion). Convince me of the soundness of your POV based on the way a POTUS would think of doing what was best to keep the country from harm and put it in a position to survive and prevail over what might come. Show me that what you believe are the actions of a God fearing man who is trying to reconcile his obligation to his country and the oath he's taken, but also to be the best Christian he can be and show me where he falls short on one side or the other and what might make up for that weakness. Show me that you have taken into account our enemy's behavior, his performances, his promises, his motivation and techniques, habits, M.O., tendencies, goals and intent, strengths and weaknesses.

Show me that you have given significant thought to ANY other possibilities than the one(s) you promote.

Convince me.

My mind may only be open 1% to other possibilities than that which I believe is correct, but I will give you EVERY BIT of that 1% and if you have the truth then that will be enough to open the other 99% certainty to be replaced by your POV.

I didn't happen upon this belief. It came about through hours of research and study and thinking. And I am ALWAYS looking for evidence of a better, TRUER, truth.

It isn't that I'm resistant to any others' ideas. It's that I HAVE considered your ideas and rejected them in favor of one I believe makes more sense, can be proven using a variety of methods and sources. I feel the emotions of the emotional arguments against the President and the Invasion.

In fact, I believe I know your arguments as well as you do and I can tell you why they don't work for me.

Can you convince me otherwise? I doubt it. But I will give any of you that 1% if you want to take a crack at it.

ole Pigeon, you are right about one thing, I do often go along here with partisan politics. But this is not an example of that.

In this case I ABSOLUTELY believe what I'm saying is true. And it wouldn't matter if Bill Clinton had done it. Oh, and BTW, EVERY Administration since Nixon, I think, has had a set of contingency plans ready which detailed how we would go to war if this country's oil supplies were ever endangered.

I think the major problem with some of you -all's not being able to believe the oil scenario I paint is because you haven't read enough to know the part that oil plays in making EVERYTHING possible in our lives.

It's MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more than just the price we pay at the gas pump.

Once you understand that, the rest makes a lot more sense.

Until then you might find it difficult to 'buy' the notion that someone would go to war JUST so SUV's can guzzle gasoline???

It is more than that.

But I must go.

Have a great day!

[besson3c]

Prove that it would be worth our effort to try Mojo. The onus is on you, you've provided plenty of evidence proving otherwise.

How about a concession? That would be a starting place... show us how your fearless leaders are not infallible. Something other than bad border security, and something that isn't lame.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Prove that it would be worth our effort to try Mojo. The onus is on you, you've provided plenty of evidence proving otherwise.

How about a concession? That would be a starting place... show us how your fearless leaders are not infallible. Something other than bad border security, and something that isn't lame.

Check the "des je vous" thread. Or the thread about Bush and the staged press conference. Those are two threads that might give you a different opinion of my "inflexibility."

BTW, I note how you have already (!!!) put the onus on me by raising the hoop that you want ME to jump through even higher while I have posted article and cited all kinds of people and even OBL himself telling you that what I'm saying is true. And you want me to do even more! And I don't know that you have even seriously considered or even understand or even READ the information of my "case." HA!!!

Talk about your onus!!! I'd like to put an onus on SOMEONE here, alright!

OK, I'm outtahere!

[tie]

Originally Posted by mojo2

If I have evidence (the name, "Sosa") to believe you are Hispanic and I tell someone here that you are Hispanic but I find out that you misled me and that you are not Hispanic, am I the liar?

Don't be silly. Bush obviously lied. In case after case. This whole Wilson affair is one example. Another example is the aluminum tubes (Bush, and Powell, claimed they were for centrifuges, while the consensus in the intelligence community was that they were for rockets — moreover, Powell lied in several specific ways besides this generality). Bush misled us and the world.

On the other hand, it is equally silly to say that we are stealing Iraqi oil. We overthrew the Iraqi government in order to secure the oil for the market, not just for ourselves. Additionally, a major goal was not just the oil, but the oil revenue. We don't need it, but we needed to make sure Saddam's regime didn't get it.

[mojo2]

And, Sosa, you and every one of us here is guilty of making this all necessary.

I admit it. Do you recognize this fact about yourself?

We didn't become energy savvy (for the most part STILL refuse to become so) and we failed to look at everything around us that wasn't created solely by MAN POWER was created with OIL.

Go ahead. Look around the room you are in.

EVERY...THING...YOU...SEE is the result of an oil expenditure.

Even your cat or dog. Even you and your baby.

You and they might be ABLE to exist without oil, but until now you haven't HAD to. And you haven't been forced to even consider the fact.

I'm guilty, too.

I just blew my nose into a piece of paper towel. How much oil did it cost?

I left the light on in the bathroom. How much oil/fossil fuel is that costing?

I'm going to make myself a cup of coffee. How much oil to create the container? How much oil to harvest the coffee beans and get them to market and transport them to the roaster/grinder?

How much oil did it cost to roast the beans for my cup of coffee and then to grind those beans and put the grounds into a container? How much oil did it cost to transport that container of coffee from the plant to the store...from the store to my shelf?

How much energy does it cost to heat the water so I can have a hot cup of coffee?

Now, multiply everything you see around you by the thought process we just read for the coffee and multiply THAT by ALL the things we own or HAVE owned or INTEND to own.

If you are going out today to BUY something YOU are contributing to this country's dependence on oil.

And if you don't recognize it and start supporting the President's decision to keep this country and this world running the way we've come to expect, then we'll just begin calling you, "hypocrite."

And if you are really SERIOUS about your protest and outrage over the war, then no more computer for you.

Cya never again!

[besson3c]

Mojo's argument might not be so easy to unravel is Iraq was the only oil supplier in the world. As it stands, hypothetical easy access to oil from Iraq may only mean the potential for lower prices, if we are able to get away with an underhanded deal.

It really comes down to saving a few bucks. Has it been worth the lives lost and all of the other downside? Only in Mojo's tightly spun and partisan world.

[thunderous_funker]

Yes, the new GOP talking points have been fully delivered. 2 years ago anyone talking about oil was shouted down as a conspiracy theorist. Now we're supposed to belive that Bush saved the oil from certain doom. If it weren't all so transparent (and sadly effective) it would be funny.

Regardless, I'm still waiting for anyone to explain exactly how its the fault of the protestors and the media that the US military still hasn't wiped out terrorism or Al'Queda? Or simpler yet, how its their fault that the US military can't secure Iraq?