Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 85
  1. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    But it has been this way for the for the last 20 plus years.
    20 years? Are you that lacking of information or that assuming the viewing public will unknowingly buy your bullshyte?

    http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/sauditimeline.html
  2. #22  
    Besides the usual demeaning and degrading comments that only detracts from a discussion.....your information is good and accurate.

    I was responding in context of a previous comment and not with the entirity of our economic, oil, and political history in mind. I should have clarified my statement more as I eluded to mostly our relationship with them since right around 1980 (about the time they started supporting the Islamic Islamist) to the present concerning terrorists (which I did note in my post) and specifically how the relationship has changed and grown in relation to the comment of only Iraq in modern events.

    If you wish to further discuss this, I am more than willing, but will not respond further if I am forced to ignore insulting and/or degrading comments and swearing in order to reply in kind in a civil manner.
  3. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I was responding in context of a previous comment and not with the entirity of our economic, oil, and political history in mind. I should have clarified my statement more as I eluded to mostly our relationship with them since right around 1980 (about the time they started supporting the Islamic Islamist) to the present concerning terrorists (which I did note in my post) and specifically how the relationship has changed and grown in relation to the comment of only Iraq in modern events.
    When you make remarks which are clearly known to be false, light has a way of making them look rather ugly. Take exception with this all you like, but those who are critical thinkers know better. The sheep you hope are following your lead simply don't matter. No harm.
  4. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Then again....seems to me Bush is pretty cozy with their backers already.

    No photoshopping required to know what bedfellows they are.

  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Is it really debate closed that the only and main reason we "deserved" and "asked for" 9/11
    Intellectual honesty break 1...Neither I nor Ron Paul (nor even the OP) said we deserved or asked for the attacks of 9/11.
    is because we had a base in Saudi Arabia, which currently was supported and approved by the ruling gov?
    Intellectual honesty break 2...Why was our presence requested there? What was our presence there prior to Desert Storm? What is our presence there now?
    I also think Iran and Syria and Lybia also have a huge weight on determining the need for the US to have a base located in Saudi Arabia.
    Intellectual honesty break 3...Careful there. It's beginning to sound like you think part of their grievance is justified, i.e. that we're just going to use it as a launching ground against other Muslim nations.
    To say it was ONLY for Iraq is a little short sighted.
    The buildup at the base was only for Iraq. Whether it's short sighted, I suppose you can debate, but you'd be debating the military:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...diarabia_x.htm
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    [...] If you wish to further discuss this, I am more than willing, but will not respond further if I am forced to ignore insulting and/or degrading comments and swearing in order to reply in kind in a civil manner.
    I think it's been shown that you'd be better served by not responding in the first place if you don't want to deal with it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #27  
    The people who claim to think independently accept and repeat the lies of the far left. You're not an independent thinker if you don't check your facts.
    I've manned up to my mistake - it truly was an honest one. But I think any rationale person reading this forum knows full well what I was trying to convey and I didn't need a photoshopped picture to convey it. And since you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation (as usual) I think I'll get back to the discussion at hand with someone that can debate more fairly.....or debate for that matter.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I was responding in context of a previous comment and not with the entirity of our economic, oil, and political history in mind. I should have clarified my statement more as I eluded to mostly our relationship with them since right around 1980 (about the time they started supporting the Islamic Islamist) to the present concerning terrorists (which I did note in my post) and specifically how the relationship has changed and grown in relation to the comment of only Iraq in modern events.
    I understand where you were coming from. It's all semantics to some degree...my point of contention is that we would have needed to invest in alternative fuels a long time ago (I picked 20 years) instead of building the Saudi's bank accounts, and subsequently, the terrorists bank accounts as the Saudis knowingly turned a blind eye whlie they were being financed in their kingdom.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I understand where you were coming from. It's all semantics to some degree...my point of contention is that we would have needed to invest in alternative fuels a long time ago (I picked 20 years) instead of building the Saudi's bank accounts, and subsequently, the terrorists bank accounts as the Saudis knowingly turned a blind eye whlie they were being financed in their kingdom.
    I couldn't disagree. There is little doubt that the money we have spent in oil over the last 20 years to gov that support terrorist activities has given them the means to attack innocent civilians around the world.

    After the gas crisis in the 70s we should have learned something and moved full force with research and we might be in a position now where our whole economy is not based on oil from foreign countries, some of which count us as their number one enemy.

    But we also have to look at where we are now and what might happen as we pursue the goal of an alternative fuel source and to become totally oil self sufficient. Think about alt fuel part in my scenario above which resulted in 80% plus of the oil revenues stopped going to the middle eastern countries.....would this be a peaceful economic transition or would there be more violence? Would there be more anger towards the US if we stopped needing to pay them for their oil?

    This is the part of the possibilities of our search for oil independence that few people talk about.....
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/21/2007 at 03:04 AM.
  10. #30  
    We should be where Brazil is now and should have been there beginning in the 70s. If we were where Brazil is now then the Middle East would be eating sand instead of stead of eating our money.

    Ben
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I've manned up to my mistake - it truly was an honest one. But I think any rationale person reading this forum knows full well what I was trying to convey and I didn't need a photoshopped picture to convey it. And since you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation (as usual) I think I'll get back to the discussion at hand with someone that can debate more fairly.....or debate for that matter.
    1. I admire that you admit your mistake. Most people around here don't do that.
    2. I'm sorry if I offended you. But it was also offensive that you posted such an outrageously false picture.
    3. I think correcting your significant error is "substantive."
    4. You give yourself, and the public, too much credit in claiming to think independently. We all get information from other people to some extent, and as your post illustrated, sometimes we don't question things enough.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny
    Is it anybody's contention that they would have eventually come over here and attack us because "they hate our freedom? Really?
    I believe they would have eventually come, but not because of our "freedom" per se, but because of our infidel status. Our purported oil-based policy may have fueled the fire, but the ultimate point of contention is a cultural one. The "americanization" of the world is likely of bigger concern, than political/economic ones. Think about it, the people who profit from our oil purchases are happy to have our military might used to preserve their reserves, so long as our "decadent" lifestyle doesn't come with it.
  13. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    This is the part of the possibilities of our search for oil independence that few people talk about.....
    Interjecting such thoughts into a conversation which requires taking ownership of 50+ years of poor-to-failed US policy is the definition of monday-morning quarterbacking at its most extreme. Don't bother with that irresponsible discussion tangent.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    1. I admire that you admit your mistake. Most people around here don't do that.
    2. I'm sorry if I offended you. But it was also offensive that you posted such an outrageously false picture.
    3. I think correcting your significant error is "substantive."
    4. You give yourself, and the public, too much credit in claiming to think independently. We all get information from other people to some extent, and as your post illustrated, sometimes we don't question things enough.
    Actually I think I try to think independently but have admitted I lean left in numerous threads now. And while you are correct that all of us get our information through channels that are filtered one way or the other, that is simply not the case with this picture - I did not go to moveon.org (a site I think I've literally read once and never went back) or some other left-leaning site. This was a recollection of Bush holding hands with the Saudi Prince and I did a google search and found this photoshopped picture. Again, I regret I didn't question it more - frankly I thought they were just doing the customary kissing thing, not making out - but found it funny nonetheless.

    As far as substantive, I guess if you had proved that the context in which I posted that was wrong (again...that we are TOO cozy with the Saudis) then calling me out on the photo would have been substantive. Instead, I took it as an oppotunity to pounce on an obvious error to paint me as something that I am not.

    Whatever.....I've admitted it was a mistake and it's over. I still maintain Bush is remarkably and hypocritically warm to a country that sponsored the worst terrorist attack on this nation and if it weren't for oil we'd have bombed them before we ever set foot in Afghanistan and certainly long before we invaded Iraq. That is the point. Oil is thre reason we have a frigged up "middle east" policy - there is no other.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I believe they would have eventually come, but not because of our "freedom" per se, but because of our infidel status. Our purported oil-based policy may have fueled the fire, but the ultimate point of contention is a cultural one.
    Maybe, or at least, I respect your opinion - but I don't share it. That said, it is tough to say either way. I mean, had they not had oil revenues from the US then perhaps they would have been poorer third world countries and arguably they would have been p!ssed off about that.

    The "americanization" of the world is likely of bigger concern, than political/economic ones. Think about it, the people who profit from our oil purchases are happy to have our military might used to preserve their reserves, so long as our "decadent" lifestyle doesn't come with it.
    Exactly. We agree on this point. They don't mind us buying oil from them at all. Why would they? We've made them all very very rich. But to the little guy who doesn't share in this wealth they just see the "americanization" of their Islamic state (or threat of it) and they don't like it. So the hatred begins. Toss in Israel and the fact that we have troops over there at various points along the historical timeline and you have the mess that we have today.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    We should be where Brazil is now and should have been there beginning in the 70s. If we were where Brazil is now then the Middle East would be eating sand instead of stead of eating our money.

    Ben
    Oh my god....Ben brace yourself....WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!
  17. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Toss in Israel ...
    US-backed nuclear Israel, to be specific.
  18. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #38  
    Its so funny to watch the uninformed in this country blame "failed US policy", and Israel for causing UBL to kill thousands of innocents. As regard to Israel, Bin Laden never cared about the Palestinian plight in the past. He only does now because he knows it raises his stature in the muslim world. If you cant see that, then you really have no grasp on the subject.

    What policy are you specifically referring to when it comes to Al-Qaida and "blowback"? Is it the U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia? Last I checked, the U.S. didnt invade Saudi Arabia. We are there with the full cooperation and agreement from the local government. How has the U.S. slighted Bin Laden where people here can justify what he has done?

    If you guys havn't figured it out yet, I will give you a clue....

    The dont hate us because of our freedom, the hate us because we dont adhere to the same backwards, evil, stuck in the middle ages, murdering, religious cult that they do.
  19. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps View Post
    Its so funny to watch the uninformed in this country blame "failed US policy", and Israel for causing UBL to kill thousands of innocents.
    Then you [and likely your children's children's children] can still be laughing when the US repeats its same grave errors in policy judgment on behalf of future generations.

    Is it the U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia? Last I checked, the U.S. didnt invade Saudi Arabia. We are there with the full cooperation and agreement for the local government.
    More definition of the void of understanding of what nationalism doesn't mean in the general muslim world. This is good when we can define what a lack of mental curiosity really means ... and costs.

    How has the U.S. slighted Bin Laden where people here can justify what he has done?
    No one has.

    The dont hate us because of our freedom, the hate us because we dont adhere to the same backwards, evil, stuck in the middle ages, murdering, religious cult that they do.
    Pat Robertson hates us?
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps View Post
    Its so funny to watch the uninformed in this country blame "failed US policy", and Israel for causing UBL to kill thousands of innocents.
    What in H E double hockey sticks are you talking about? We're talking about oil being the basis of our foreign policy in the middle east and I only mentioned Israel as fuel to the fire over there. I certainly never said UBL attacked us on 911 because of Israel.

    Now on to the matter of "failed US policy", well yes, we have a failed middle east policy (can we call it anything else?) and my contention is that oil is the reason that we have a middle east policy at all.

    So from your perspective what this is boiling down to is religion - that we are going to be attacked by fanatics because we are infidels. They won't attack us because they hate our freedom but they will attack us because it is our fate - there will be a jihad or holy war so we may as well try to head em' off at the pass. Is that the basic logic of your argument?
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions