Page 6 of 43 FirstFirst 123456789101116 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 845
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Absolutely it does!! And to me that's the whole point, before a judgement can be made one way of the other it needs to be investigated. To believe it on it's face is to act as the very sheep you describe.
    Here we are in agreement, I should have stated this is pretty solid proof thus far, instead of my previous statement of "concrete".
  2. #102  
    "They had a month to check it out and it has passed the legitimacy tests thus far."

    Legitmacy test=makes Bush look bad.

    What was the name of that Ambassador that lied about his yellow cake escapades for the CIA? (Whatever happened to the "outing" of his wife? I thought that scandal was going to bring Bush down?) Didn't the 9/11 commission conclude that Richard Clarke lied his *** off, after he had months of page one coverage? Didn't the BBC report "sexed up" intelligence, only to have to retract?

    What you guys really hate is that W's policies are working. We're paying the price in blood and treasure, but the Middle East is being transformed.
  3. #103  
    Look there are a lot of factors at work here (economic factors such as inflation, etc.) that attribute to the price of oil. While supply and demand is arguably higher today than it was 20 years ago it still does not address the issue of why oil prices have suddenly (over the course of 18 months) risen so sharply and are in such flux. Supply and demand on this much of a global scale does not normally attribute to the kind of volatility we are seeing in oil.

    In economics there is such a thing as event risks (ie war, geopolitical events, etc.) which can cause the price of certain commodities (like oil) to go up while other assets go down. I'd rather not further hijack this thread and get into that discussion. We can do it over coffee though

    Anyway, my initial point was that OPEC is sensitive to event risks. An event risk that can be calculated (eg War) then has a direct relationship between those who are perpetrating that event risk (US gov't) and the folks who will suffer the (economic) consequences of that event risk.

    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Are you really trying to go here????? - - seriously....

    Do a quick google search and you'll find oil consumption is exceptionally high and the use of alternative energy sources is minute by comparison and that is has little if any impact on oil prices.

    The fact is, oil prices are higher do to supply, demand and production control issues related to supply and demand.
    Last edited by illustreous; 06/02/2005 at 08:28 AM.
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    "They had a month to check it out and it has passed the legitimacy tests thus far."

    Legitmacy test=makes Bush look bad.
    Big freakin' if it makes him look bad or good, I WANT THE TRUTH.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    What was the name of that Ambassador that lied about his yellow cake escapades for the CIA?
    His name is Joe Wilson and he turned out to be right. Saddam never sought yellow-cake from Niger. He warned the WH about putting that line in Bush's speech.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    (Whatever happened to the "outing" of his wife? I thought that scandal was going to bring Bush down?)
    It is still in court and they are going through motions patience.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Didn't the 9/11 commission conclude that Richard Clarke lied his *** off, after he had months of page one coverage?
    Not that I am aware of. Point me to where in the 9/11 report it says this.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    "Didn't the BBC report "sexed up" intelligence, only to have to retract?
    This I think is what the memo is all about.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    "What you guys really hate is that W's policies are working.
    Again, I don't care, I want the truth. I am not as partsian as you, therefore I can see the real problem here. If this document turns out to be true Dubya is guilty of breaking the law. "False Statements Accountability Act of 1996" to be precise.
  5. #105  
    The student movement in Iran grows stronger, over half that population is under the age of 30. The race now is if the change takes place before the Mullahs get their bomb.
    The US presence in the Middle East has had little to no effect on this; simply put, the youth are frustrated with the limitations imposed on their lives and although they grow in number, it has had little effect in the grand scheme of things. Watch during this upcoming presidential election and see the moderate candidates once again get stripped from the ballot, and more promises of social refom. As soon as the power of the Mullahs is threatened they will all band together to quell it. Witness the student demonstrations over the past 5 years.

    No, this is certainly not improving and a drastic change needs to be induced (more likely than not through outside support, unfortunately). Hell, the US is good at inducing regime change, it's about time it did so again in Iran.
  6. #106  
    You accuse me of excessive partisanship, yet have been hammering Bush with virtually every post on this board. Embrace your hate! Feel the power of the darkside! Admit that you're a raging liberal and are motivated by pure partisanship.

    Now then, this "document". Does it quote Bush directly, or is it someone's perspective on what Bush is doing with the US intel community? Someone that came here, attended meetings, and then reported back to Blair? What agenda does that person have? Who did he talk to while he was here, and what agenda did they have?

    On Joe Wilson's veracity check out this document:
    http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

    I believe this is the same report that absolved Bush and Cheney of undue influence in the intelligence product. (Bonus Round: What was the name of the CIA Director that called WMD in Iraq a slam dunk, and who appointed him? Extra points...Did Clinton ever say that Saddam had WMD and posed a threat?)
  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherv
    The US presence in the Middle East has had little to no effect on this; simply put, the youth are frustrated with the limitations imposed on their lives and although they grow in number, it has had little effect in the grand scheme of things. Watch during this upcoming presidential election and see the moderate candidates once again get stripped from the ballot, and more promises of social refom. As soon as the power of the Mullahs is threatened they will all band together to quell it. Witness the student demonstrations over the past 5 years.

    No, this is certainly not improving and a drastic change needs to be induced (more likely than not through outside support, unfortunately). Hell, the US is good at inducing regime change, it's about time it did so again in Iran.
    I disagree. The images of people voting in Afghanistan and Iraq had a very positive impact on the morale of those students. Those images came about as the result of the exercise of American military power.

    I agree totally in the need for regime change in Iran. Zoodtar, lotfan!
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    I disagree. The images of people voting in Afghanistan and Iraq had a very positive impact on the morale of those students. Those images came about as the result of the exercise of American military power.

    I agree totally in the need for regime change in Iran. Zoodtar, lotfan!

    Haha, good to see some Farsi in use

    Hmm, I heard otherwise from my mother who was in Iran recently (granted she does not have the best contact with the youth). The morale is up and down, based on daily events [recently a young man was simply shot in the head for resisting being taken to the police station for "lewd behavior"] and the youth are just becoming more and more impatient with the lack of reform. It would be very interesting to get a consensus on what they feel with what's going on outside the country.

    But the population CAN vote...what good does it do when you're voting for one demon out of a party of devils?
  9. #109  
    We should be shipping the weapons we capture in Iraq over the border to Iran...return the favor, as it were.

    Actually, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that there are special forces guys training students in the Zagros.
  10.    #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    Iraq had over 10 years to prove to the world they didn't have WMDs. If they truly didn't have WMD, they obviously didn't make their case very well. Hindsight is 20/20, however, like dcsipe said:
    If I accuse you of molesting children and you fail to prove you don't, is it fine to send you to jail?

    It is up to the ACCUSER to prove the charges.
  11.    #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by dcsipe
    The same can be asked of you. Prove the document is irrefutable and real. Why do you ask? Can you produce the actual document? Are you the leak? Shall we call you Deep Throat Jr?

    You can't prove that it is real, and I can't prove that it isn't. You can quote anything you like, say whatever you want, you cannot prove that is 100% undeniably real.
    Its unbelievable that the same group that is so outraged at Clinton's lie, goes in any direction to ignore and justify clear lies that led to war by Bush.

    "Worst president EVER!"
  12.    #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Or partially so.

    My beef with nudist isn't what he has to say but rather why he says it. Based on my reading of his previous posts, IMO he posts not to discuss but rather to bash and further his hatred of those who do not believe as he does. Every thread he has started is incendiary in nature - he cares not about the discussion.
    You could say the same for claire and others. Review some of her posts and pictures about Kennedy et al. Now THERE is some intellectual discussion!

    When you have an administration as incompetent, corrupt and un-american as this one, it is the responsibility of a good citizen to question, criticize and debate it's policies, not follow it like "sheeple".

    So get used to it! I'll bash the Bush administration as often and as hard as I can. If you can't defend it, give up.... don't tell me not to do it.
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    You could say the same for claire and others. Review some of her posts and pictures about Kennedy et al. Now THERE is some intellectual discussion!
    One thing about claire though...she doesn't discriminate on her bashings I've been the target of one or two But her posts are "a lot of the time" humerous, so I enjoy her 2 cents worth. But then again, I usually agree with her, so maybe that's why I find her humerous. What was my point? I forget....Claire, BASH ME!
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    You could say the same for claire and others. Review some of her posts and pictures about Kennedy et al. Now THERE is some intellectual discussion!

    When you have an administration as incompetent, corrupt and un-american as this one, it is the responsibility of a good citizen to question, criticize and debate it's policies, not follow it like "sheeple".

    So get used to it! I'll bash the Bush administration as often and as hard as I can. If you can't defend it, give up.... don't tell me not to do it.
    You are a laugh-a-minute. You should consider Vegas.

    My comments about Kennedy certainly dont have the hatred or vitriol that you have toward the President. You're one guy, 59 million decided on Bush. Sorry.

    Well behaved women rarely make history
  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Bush acted on the best intelligence he had available. He acted boldly.
    If that was the case, then Bush acted on total BS. How comes the Brits called the WMD case "weak", and the Bush administration (apparently) felt 110% sure about the WMD?
    The war in Iraq is an integral part of the war on terror.
    See, BS again. The link between Saddam and Islamistic terrorists is bogus. It is even official bogus by now, so please start accepting well established facts. The link between Saddam and 9/11 is very close to inexistent - face the facts, even if you don't like them.
    WMD or no, Saddam was an excellent target for regieme change. (Location, location, location!)
    Since there were neither WMD nor a link to 9/11, it must indeed be location, location, location, in other words: Oil! Oil! Oil! Lets be open and honest about motives, ok?
    Taking down Saddam with military force has destabilized the entire Islamo-Facist world.
    Saddam was a cruel dictator, but not part of Islamistic circles. No matter how often you repeat it, it will not become true. If you are interested in the "Islamo-Facist" world, as you put it, try Saudia-Arabia, and the Saudi Royal family, the heads of Wahhabism, the most extreme and fundamentalist form of Islam, the basis of people like Bin Laden. But, alas, they have close ties to the Bush family, or would you deny that?
    Why haven't we attacked North Korea? Mostly because their young men haven't flown airliners into our buildings.
    In contrast to the young Iraqis who flew into your buildings, right? The devoted followers of Saddam Hussein, such as Mohammed Atta, and his fellow Iraqis... ooops, didn't they come from somewhere else, Saudi-Arabia or something? Never mind... WMDs, 9/11, Saddam had to go because of that, no question!

    You seem to be locked in a state of deliberate confusion when it comes to Islamistic terrorism, 9/11, and Saddam Hussein.
    Last edited by clulup; 06/02/2005 at 10:21 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    If I accuse you of molesting children and you fail to prove you don't, is it fine to send you to jail?

    It is up to the ACCUSER to prove the charges.
    And here we have a classic example of the "Hate America First" left wing mindset. Further, we see illustrated the tendency to equate fighting a war with law enforcement activity, a proven fallacy that contributed to 9/11. After the Beirut bombing, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, hell, the first World Trade Center attack, the embassy bombings all we did was send FBI agents and prosectors around the globe, filing charges and making court room martyrs.

    Let's put Saddam in the role of the accused child molestor. Let's put ourselves in, say, Florida, and Saddam is our door neighbor. Our neighbor has a long history of violence and abusing children, and one day our daughter goes missing. Saddam is no where to be found, and his family members say he has been gone for some time and have no idea where he is. They are quite adamant in their denial, and even have hired an attorney and sought media attention claiming Saddam was being persecuted. Other people that have been doing business with Saddam step forward and attempt to impede the investigation.

    Given the near 100% recidivism rate of child molestors, the fact that Saddam has a LONG history of violence, and the tendency of their families to act as enablers, who do we believe in this scenario? What is the most likely, to a degree of near certitude, to have happened to our daughter? Who gets the benefit of the doubt? Think fast...our daughter may still be alive somewhere...

    Furthering the analogy, there is a status in this country known as a "4th Waiver". Imposed by a judge, a person under a 4th waiver has had his 4th amendment rights suspended. (4th Amendment posted below.)

    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    By his past actions, including mass violence to oppress his own people, the use of poison gas on an ethnic population, invading Iran and invading Kuwait, Saddam was under the UN equivalent of a "4th Waiver". He had to AFFIRMATIVELY PROVE that he was not engaged in WMD manufacture. He had years to do so...and actively sought to obstruct inspections teams, while at the same time laying HUGE bribes on the UN. (Does anybody here honestly believe that didn't have a lot to do with this situation? Anybody?)

    The entire US intelligence apparatus has been telling US presidents for years that Saddam had an active WMD program. Unlike Clinton, Bush acted on that information...decisively. At this point in history it looks as if he was misinformed, but only until we uncover what is in the Bekka valley will I believe that Saddam did not have an active WMD program. Democratizing the Middle East is the only way we'll ever have a look inside those bunkers.
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Let's put Saddam in the role of the accused child molestor.
    Why in the role of a child molestor in Florida?

    Why not put him in the role of a ballet dancer, or an astronaut? Because he is neither a ballet dancer, nor an astronaut? Fair enough, but he also isn't a child molestor in Florida, so I don't see what we can learn from this example.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    ..only until we uncover what is in the Bekka valley will I believe that Saddam did not have an active WMD program.
    Last time I checked the Beka (Bekaa) Valley was in Lebanon, not Syria - you want to go and search Lebanon, too?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #119  
    CLULUP: If that was the case, then Bush acted on total BS. How comes the Brits called the WMD case "weak", and the Bush administration (apparently) felt 110% sure about the WMD?

    1911s: We have spent tens of billions of dollars on our intelligence apparatus. Sometimes it fails. Sometimes no one heeds the warnings. The bottom line is that he was presented with information, weighed it with other sources, and made a difficult decision. (By the way, the guy that called WMD in Iraq a "slam dunk" was the Clinton appointed director of the CIA. You remember Clinton, the guy you agree with so much on US foreign policy decisions. He also believed that Saddam had WMD, but lacked the strength to buck the UN and directly confront evil.)

    I can't speak to the British take on WMD intelligence. I recognize that they are fragmented on this issue, and have people with other agendas within their government.

    Clulup: See, BS again. The link between Saddam and Islamistic terrorists is bogus. It is even official bogus by now, so please start accepting well established facts. The link between Saddam and 9/11 is very close to inexistent - face the facts, even if you don't like them.

    1911sforever: I never once argued that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Re-read my posts. You are projecting your own predjudices. As far as Saddam not being involved with Islammic terrorists, are you sure you want to stand by that statement? It is well known that Saddam was paying off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers...or doesn't that count?

    Clulup: Since there were neither WMD nor a link to 9/11, it must indeed be location, location, location, in other words: Oil! Oil! Oil! Lets be open and honest about motives, ok?

    1911sforever: Please re-read my posts, or are you being deliberately obtuse? We thought Saddam had WMD. He did support terrorism. He typified a middle east dictator. By taking him out, the example was set for others of his kind in the region...that we would brook no more of their crap. Witness now that Libya gave up their WMD program. Did you see the people marching in long lines under fire to vote and have their finger inked purple in Iraq? Do you think the Syrians would have pulled out of Lebanon without US military forces on their eastern border? Iraq represents the middle of the middle east. Our presence there will prove the catalyst for change. We will pay a price in blood in treasure, that is sure, but that change must come and this was the only option we had to effect it in a time frame that supports our national security. With Iran on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon, we may be too late.

    As far as "oil, oil, oil" goes, for far too long we accepted status quo to make sure that oil flowed freely. As of 9/11 that price got too high. It is to our shame that we didn't act sooner.

    Clulup: Saddam was a cruel dictator, but not part of Islamistic circles. No matter how often you repeat it, it will not become true. If you are interested in the "Islamo-Facist" world, as you put it, try Saudia-Arabia, and the Saudi Royal family, the heads of Wahhabism, the most extreme and fundamentalist form of Islam, the basis of people like Bin Laden. But, alas, they have close ties to the Bush family, or would you deny that?

    1911s: Saddam played the religion card when it benefited him...like all of them do in that region. With his ouster by force of American arms they've all been served notice, the Saudis included. Watch now what happens in that region when people in Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran see Iraqis and Afghanis voting.

    I do agree totally that the Saudi have gotten off far too lightly at the hands of this administration.

    Clulup: In contrast to the young Iraqis who flew into your buildings, right? The devote followers of Saddam Hussein, such as Mohammed Atta, and his fellow Iraqis... ooops, didn't they come from somewhere else, Saudi-Arabia or something? Never mind... WMDs, 9/11, Saddam had to go because of that, no question!

    You seem to be locked in a state of deliberate confusion when it comes to Islamistic terrorism, 9/11, and Saddam Hussein.

    1911s: I understand full well the nature of this war. We are fighting an idealogy without borders, and that we must fight across the spectrum of the conflict and use a strategy that plays to our strengths. That means military force, or at least the credible threat of force. Diplomacy. Economic assistance. Economic sanctions. Information. Education. Giving people a voice in a part of the world that has never, in all of human history, allowed the common man, let alone the common woman, to participate in government.

    Many of our "allies" in this fight (The Saudis, the French, the Germans, the Russians.) will smile at us as they slide the knife into our ribs. Other nations will remain silent, as they did throughout the Cold War, while we again do the dirtiest of the dirty work, and in the end they will benefit from our efforts. In the end, history will prove us right. Again.
  20. #120  
    Quite right. I got carried away. I'm sure that with the Syrian military withdrawal and the subsquent closing of the terrorist camps that anything really interesing is now just downwind of Damascus. All in good time.

Posting Permissions