[abe]

Originally Posted by loki74

Although what has been said (that thinking of conversations in "win" and "lose" terms may not be accurate) may be true, as soon as you say this, guess what--you lose.

To say that anyone who disagrees with you is a retard because of it, I think, is a very foolish and arrogant idea. You are no more wise to say that this was about oil and oil only than anyone else is to say it is purely humanitarian, especially given that you offer no evidence as to the inner thoughts of President Bush, or for that matter, all those who voted to give him the power to do what he did.

I do not think it is logical to deny that oil was a factor. But to say it was "numero uno" is not only conjecture, but in many cases also part of a political agenda and/or vendetta against the current administration.

I don't think that human lives are a factor in a financial equation. Rather, I feel that money is a factor in a human equation. I know it makes us feel good and justified and righteous to talk about how valuable life is over money, (and this is true--there is nothing more valuable than human life) but lets face it--human lives and money are inevitablly and irreversably linked.

WOW!!!!!

EXCELLENT POST!

[Monique]

Should we know everything at all time? I do not think so; when a war is going on we do not have to know every details. War is a very ugly business and there is always abuse from all sides. There is always time afterward to judge the victorious and the loosing sides.

I know that unless they produce negative news the networks would be out of a job. But, they could mind their business for now then after it is over there will be time to judge the abusers.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Monique

Should we know everything at all time? I do not think so; when a war is going on we do not have to know every details. War is a very ugly business and there is always abuse from all sides. There is always time afterward to judge the victorious and the loosing sides.

maybe i'm misreading your post, or not understanding to what you are responding, but saddam's regime is long gone. you could make an excuse that the US's condonation of iraq smuggling (to our own allies afterall) was simply strategic but how long do you want to wait before scrutinizing the actions of our (i shouldn't assume you're an USA citizen, i guess) country? until the war on terror is over? ha! let's talk then, when we're both 80.

i don't want to know what a few CIA agents are doing within an aggressive foriegn country, but basing a war, illicitly and illegally funding the justifications for a war, solely for the reason that years later, we can use that 'indiscretion' as a reason for war, is hypocritical.

and after all that people claim 'it wasn't about oil'...

[abe]

Originally Posted by Monique

Should we know everything at all time? I do not think so; when a war is going on we do not have to know every details. War is a very ugly business and there is always abuse from all sides. There is always time afterward to judge the victorious and the loosing sides.

I know that unless they produce negative news the networks would be out of a job. But, they could mind their business for now then after it is over there will be time to judge the abusers.

ANOTHER EXCELLENT POST!!!

I think we may have opened a 'can of worms' or a Pandora's Box when TV began this armchair judging syndrome.

The People's Court. Judge Judy. Lane Mills. Joe Brown. All those and other shows invite the every day person to become the judge. And there are some people who have as much ability to be a judge of matters of national importance as I have the ability to coach a hockey team.

I've attended a few hockey games and know some of the player's names but know NOTHING about it, really.

And there are people who think they are entitled to know EVERYTHING about our foreign policy because Judge Judy gives them all the information with which to make a decision or because they are citizens. WRONG!

Good for you, Monique!

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by abe

ANOTHER EXCELLENT POST!!!

I think we may have opened a 'can of worms' or a Pandora's Box when TV began this armchair judging syndrome.

The People's Court. Judge Judy. Lane Mills. Joe Brown. All those and other shows invite the every day person to become the judge. And there are some people who have as much ability to be a judge of matters of national importance as I have the ability to coach a hockey team.

I've attended a few hockey games and know some of the player's names but know NOTHING about it, really.

And there are people who think they are entitled to know EVERYTHING about our foreign policy because Judge Judy gives them all the information with which to make a decision or because they are citizens. WRONG!

Good for you, Monique!

at least when you went by the nick suffixed 'writer' you at least gave some idea about what you were trying to achieve, though being a writer does not prevent you from making superfluous posts. so, being a self-ascribed armchair philosopher, who looks to seek answers from that stoop, do you simply avoid what may lay on the other side of the coin, for fear that it won't make your clients happy?

In my armchair I sometimes adopt the mindset that it is up to me to wade through the vagaries of thought, (the ethereal, esoteric, existential, oedipal and elementary...) to find ideas that are useful to the decision maker, whether it be a political, an administrative or a military decision maker.

When I'm discarding others' opinions it's sometimes because that opinion isn't something that can be used by my hypothetical clients.

from this current thread

so specifically, are you happy that the US condoned the funding of saddam's WMD program throughout the '90's to the tune of ~$17B, though those programs' existence is still in question (though, not by many people on this forum), the very same programs which became such an 'imminent threat', the very same programs that made US citizens quake in their boots at the shear though of his diablolical madness, that this current war was waged solely (initially at least) for that reason?

[black bear theory]

d'oh!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hold please. He was out wading in the vagaries of thought. Give him a minute to dry off.

greg


Now Playing: The Kinks – All of My Friends Were There

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Hold please. He was out wading in the vagaries of thought. Give him a minute to dry off.

greg

lol.

[abe]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

at least when you went by the nick suffixed 'writer' you at least gave some idea about what you were trying to achieve, though being a writer does not prevent you from making superfluous posts. so, being a self-ascribed armchair philosopher, who looks to seek answers from that stoop, do you simply avoid what may lay on the other side of the coin, for fear that it won't make your clients happy?
from this current thread

so specifically, are you happy that the US condoned the funding of saddam's WMD program throughout the '90's to the tune of ~$17B, though those programs' existence is still in question (though, not by many people on this forum), the very same programs which became such an 'imminent threat', the very same programs that made US citizens quake in their boots at the shear though of his diablolical madness, that this current war was waged solely (initially at least) for that reason?

There's something you might learn from popular 70's culture. Take it away Kenny Rogers...

The Gambler

On a warm summer’s evenin’ on a train bound for nowhere,
I met up with the gambler; we were both too tired to sleep.
So we took turns a starin’ out the window at the darkness
’til boredom overtook us, and he began to speak.

He said, son, I’ve made a life out of readin’ people’s faces,
And knowin’ what their cards were by the way they held their eyes.
So if you don’t mind my sayin’, I can see you’re out of aces.
For a taste of your whiskey I’ll give you some advice.

So I handed him my bottle and he drank down my last swallow.
Then he bummed a cigarette and asked me for a light.
And the night got deathly quiet, and his face lost all expression.
Said, if you’re gonna play the game, boy, ya gotta learn to play it right.

You got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when you’re sittin’ at the table.
There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done.

Now ev’ry gambler knows that the secret to survivin’
Is knowin’ what to throw away and knowing what to keep.
’cause ev’ry hand’s a winner and ev’ry hand’s a loser,
And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep.

So when he’d finished speakin’, he turned back towards the window,
Crushed out his cigarette and faded off to sleep.
And somewhere in the darkness the gambler, he broke even.
But in his final words I found an ace that I could keep.

You got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when you’re sittin’ at the table.
There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done.

You got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count you r money when you’re sittin’ at the table.
There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by abe

There's something you might learn from popular 70's culture. Take it away Kenny Rogers...

so what, in your own words "writer", should i learn?

i'll ask again, so that maybe, you can deflect the question another time...

so specifically, are you happy that the US condoned the funding of saddam's WMD program throughout the '90's to the tune of ~$17B, though those programs' existence is still in question (though, not by many people on this forum), the very same programs which became such an 'imminent threat', the very same programs that made US citizens quake in their boots at the shear though of his diablolical madness, that this current war was waged solely (initially at least) for that reason?

you don't have to answer of course, though i am startled by the overall lack of responses to these actions of the righteous US. and as far as monique's idea that this is ongoing, saddam is gone - the "dealing's done". when do we count our earnings?

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Monique

Should we know everything at all time? I do not think so; when a war is going on we do not have to know every details. War is a very ugly business and there is always abuse from all sides. There is always time afterward to judge the victorious and the loosing sides.

now that is uncommon sense. kinda refreshing, really.

so specifically, are you happy that the US condoned the funding of saddam's WMD program throughout the '90's to the tune of ~$17B, though those programs' existence is still in question (though, not by many people on this forum), the very same programs which became such an 'imminent threat', the very same programs that made US citizens quake in their boots at the shear though of his diablolical madness, that this current war was waged solely (initially at least) for that reason?

I admittedly have not done a lot of looking into the situation with Iraq in the '90s, but I think its fair to say--"hindsight is always 20/20."

[abe]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

so what, in your own words "writer", should i learn?

i'll ask again, so that maybe, you can deflect the question another time...

you don't have to answer of course, though i am startled by the overall lack of responses to these actions of the righteous US. and as far as monique's idea that this is ongoing, saddam is gone - the "dealing's done". when do we count our earnings?

I have a bear theory of my own, black bear theory.

If you were less impetuous and possessed of a greater degree of patience you would wait to see everything that might BEAR on this matter, instead of hastily grasping at the first evidence you could which allowed you to sit in the catbird's seat, even for a moment, only to be dethroned when the final results came in.

You remind me of someone who takes his ticket to the window to be paid off even while the horses are still running the race.

Slow down junior.

There will be talk and probably a word or two (million) spoken and written about this before all is said and done.

I'll bet you were red hot angry at Michael "Brownie" Brown (the FEMA guy) who many thought was solely and directly responsible for the gov't handling of our Katrina response at the time. I'll bet there were any number of folks here wanting his head on a platter. What I was telling folks where I do business was to wait until the facts come in. And sure enough as we found out over the subsequent months there was plenty of blame to be shared. MOST of which rested with the LOCALS.

That kinda cemented my reputation around here as 'The Gambler' because I'd sing to everyone around here "there'll be time enough for countin, when the dealin's done."

That's why I'm giving you that same advice now, about this. It'll make you look smarter when the time comes.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Irrelevant.

What he's talking about is in the past, and started over a decade ago. It's one thing to say, "oh, hindsight is always 20/20" or…whatever abe's trying to say, which seems to me to be vaguely avoiding the subject in favour of not being put on the spot. I fail to see how there could be any excuse for flat-out funding a regime that one had implemented sanctions for – besides the ago-old motive of profit – and then going to war because of what was being done with that funding.

But, let's not discuss that, noooo. Fold the cards. Discussion done. Pretend that you're somehow smarter by refusing to critically analyze your Government's actions. Give yourself cool-sounding names, like "The Gambler."



greg

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Irrelevant.

What he's talking about is in the past, and started over a decade ago. It's one thing to say, "oh, hindsight is always 20/20" or…whatever abe's trying to say, which seems to me to be vaguely avoiding the subject in favour of not being put on the spot. I fail to see how there could be any excuse for flat-out funding a regime that one had implemented sanctions for – besides the ago-old motive of profit – and then going to war because of what was being done with that funding.

But, let's not discuss that, noooo. Fold the cards. Discussion done. Pretend that you're somehow smarter by refusing to critically analyze your Government's actions. Give yourself cool-sounding names, like "The Gambler."



greg

Hmmm...don't like The Gambler, huh? Well maybe this one's more your speed.

Kenny Rogers - You Decorated My Life Lyrics

Abe, my life was a paper once plain, pure and white
Till you moved with your pen changin` moods now and then
Till the balance was right
Then you added some insults, ev`ry slam was in place
And anybody could see all the changes in me by the look on my face



Abe you decorated my life, created a world where dreams are a part
Abe you decorated my life by paintin` your xxxx all over my heart
You decorated my life

Like a rhyme with no reason in an unfinished song
There was no harmony life meant nothin` to me, until you came along
And you brought out the coloreds, what a ghetto surprise
Now I`m able to see all the things life can be wit you gang bangin guys

Abe you decorated my life, created a world where dreams are a part
Abe you decorated my life by paintin` your xxxx all over my heart
You decorated my life

There. Fixed.

[Monique]

I am not talking about the war against terrorists; which will be ever present against the Western world. I am talking about the war in Iraq which I hope will end soon.

With all that scrutiny aren't we making sure that this war will go on forever.

During the second world war one key of the success wasn't it the secrecy?

And are things better whenever you know every little details about everything, like the private lives of our politiciens, the war, etc.

When one thing is over we can judge, if there was some over zeleous abuse we have courts. But, condemning soldiers when they are trying to do their best over there does not help to end the situation; on the contrary it prolongs it. And what would you do, if you had a friend whose head had been blown up by a well intended Iraqi (and I am being sacarstic here)?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by loki74

I do not think it is logical to deny that oil was a factor. But to say it was "numero uno" is not only conjecture, but in many cases also part of a political agenda and/or vendetta against the current administration.

I didn't mention oil at all in my post. I explained that this is about money. A huge part of it is oil, but not exclusively. The CIA was created exactly for accomplishing this.

Removing Saddam is a great cover story. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I think it's great, but that wasn't why we were there. It's just convenient because it doesn't make the US seem so much like a bad guy.

Messed that up, though.

[BRussell]

I'm wondering what the Bushies here think about a few recent nuggets. One is a description of a meeting between Bush and Blair just before the war. Both dishonesty and incompetence are clear in the minutes of these meetings. They failed to consider obvious contingencies and they pretended to use war as a last resort, when in fact it was the plan all along. They even talk about provoking an attack with a kind of false flag operation.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

The other is a piece on how the political people tried to cover up Bush's lies about the war during the election.

But Hadley and other administration officials realized that it would be much more difficult to shield Bush from criticism for his statements regarding the aluminum tubes, for several reasons.
For one, Hadley's review concluded that Bush had been directly and repeatedly apprised of the deep rift within the intelligence community over whether Iraq wanted the high-strength aluminum tubes for a nuclear weapons program or for conventional weapons.
For another, the president and others in the administration had cited the aluminum tubes as the most compelling evidence that Saddam was determined to build a nuclear weapon -- even more than the allegations that he was attempting to purchase uranium.
And finally, full disclosure of the internal dissent over the importance of the tubes would have almost certainly raised broader questions about the administration's conduct in the months leading up to war.
"Presidential knowledge was the ball game," says a former senior government official outside the White House who was personally familiar with the damage-control effort. "The mission was to insulate the president. It was about making it appear that he wasn't in the know. You could do that on Niger. You couldn't do that with the tubes." A Republican political appointee involved in the process, who thought the Bush administration had a constitutional obligation to be more open with Congress, said: "This was about getting past the election."

Do you just dismiss this stuff as the left-wing partisan media making up lies? Or does it not matter any more? How do you deal with this stuff?

[black bear theory]

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

so that meeting (from which the minutes were recorded) occured on 2003/1/03.

and this ...

Originally Posted by george w. bush

And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.

war on terror - whitehouse.gov
a little over two months later.

if you say something and you know it's not true, are you lying?

#1?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I didn't mention oil at all in my post. I explained that this is about money. A huge part of it is oil, but not exclusively. The CIA was created exactly for accomplishing this.

Removing Saddam is a great cover story. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I think it's great, but that wasn't why we were there. It's just convenient because it doesn't make the US seem so much like a bad guy.

Messed that up, though.

and what does iraq offer us (and the world economy as already established earlier in the thread) other than oil?

what other major export of iraq would supply US with money if not oil? silicon? figs?

#2?

[Y3a]

It 'looks' like the leaders of BOTH the UK and the US had military/intel briefings by rightys, and followed those trusted(at that time) folks.

You have a sense of urgency about the possible war, and you have what MIGHT BE questionable intel. do you go with it because you trust that you haven't been lied to or stop for a few years and fix the intel gathering process?

Where are those who's job it was to make sure the intel community worked well enough to protect us? That would be the usless bags of crap in the house and senate.

Who voted those particular bags of crap into office?
WE DID.