Another Iraq Thread (with a POLL)

[Nemesis77]

I don't think about oil directly (read: USA wants to grab Iraqs oil), but I don't agree with option #1 100% as well. I think USA does want more oil in the market, but they have no real desire to control it directly. I don't think that US is attacking Iraq solely because of their invasions of their neighbours (remember: USA supported Iraq in their war against Iran), and USA gave their silent approval to the gassing of the kurds.

What do I believe? It's a combination of things: threat of Iraqi WMD's coupled with more oil in the market and unstability of Saddam. Combine those three and you get war on Iraq.

 

[skace]

I don't care if it is reason 1 or reason 2,3,4,5, or 6. All I hope is that the job gets done CORRECTLY and properly.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
So I guess the reasoning behind answer 2 is the "liar, liar, pants on fire " defense. Colin Powell, who many of you here hail as the man of integrity, the voice of reason, the moderate in an admin. full of war mongers, the man who is above all politics, has suddenly completely changed his character and is lying through his teeth about the threat Iraq poses and our reasons for possibly going to war. Correct me if I'm wrong but that is what the ~50 or so of you who checked number 2 are saying, right?

You really need to quit using people in the Bush administration to justify #1. We were supposed to be looking for concrete evidence. I thought we covered this. Please examine all possibilities on an even level or admit that your not interested in unbiased discussion.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
So I guess the reasoning behind answer 2 is the "liar, liar, pants on fire " defense. Colin Powell, who many of you here hail as the man of integrity, the voice of reason, the moderate in an admin. full of war mongers, the man who is above all politics, has suddenly completely changed his character and is lying through his teeth about the threat Iraq poses and our reasons for possibly going to war. Correct me if I'm wrong but that is what the ~50 or so of you who checked number 2 are saying, right?

You really need to quit using people in the Bush administration to justify #1. We were supposed to be looking for concrete evidence. I thought we covered this. Please examine all possibilities on an even level or admit that your not interested in unbiased discussion.

It is not possible to determine motivation without examining their words and actions. Please contribute something to the thread or move along.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
So I guess the reasoning behind answer 2 is the "liar, liar, pants on fire " defense. Colin Powell, who many of you here hail as the man of integrity, the voice of reason, the moderate in an admin. full of war mongers, the man who is above all politics, has suddenly completely changed his character and is lying through his teeth about the threat Iraq poses and our reasons for possibly going to war. Correct me if I'm wrong but that is what the ~50 or so of you who checked number 2 are saying, right?

You really need to quit using people in the Bush administration to justify #1. We were supposed to be looking for concrete evidence. I thought we covered this. Please examine all possibilities on an even level or admit that your not interested in unbiased discussion.

It is not possible to determine motivation without examining their words and actions. Please contribute something to the thread or move along.

I am contributing a great deal by keeping the discussion unbiased. You keep trying to prove the Bush administrations motives by saying "because they said so" which is ridiculous. If you are truly interested in unbiased discussion then cut the crap.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

DaveSohmer's just got it all figured out it looks like.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
So I guess the reasoning behind answer 2 is the "liar, liar, pants on fire " defense. Colin Powell, who many of you here hail as the man of integrity, the voice of reason, the moderate in an admin. full of war mongers, the man who is above all politics, has suddenly completely changed his character and is lying through his teeth about the threat Iraq poses and our reasons for possibly going to war. Correct me if I'm wrong but that is what the ~50 or so of you who checked number 2 are saying, right?

You really need to quit using people in the Bush administration to justify #1. We were supposed to be looking for concrete evidence. I thought we covered this. Please examine all possibilities on an even level or admit that your not interested in unbiased discussion.

It is not possible to determine motivation without examining their words and actions. Please contribute something to the thread or move along.

I am contributing a great deal by keeping the discussion unbiased. You keep trying to prove the Bush administrations motives by saying "because they said so" which is ridiculous. If you are truly interested in unbiased discussion then cut the crap.

If you are truly interested in adding anything to this thread then do so. I don't remember asking you to become the moderator here and your services in that capacity are neither required nor desired. People have posted their opinions on the subject and I have not singled them out for discussion. What I am looking for is solid evidence that the admin. is lying about their position. Coming in here and saying "well you haven't posted any solid evidence that their telling the truth either" is not adding to the thread. It only makes you appear to be the obtuse fscktard that you apparently are without the ability to answer the question. If you can't answer it, move along.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
So I guess the reasoning behind answer 2 is the "liar, liar, pants on fire " defense. Colin Powell, who many of you here hail as the man of integrity, the voice of reason, the moderate in an admin. full of war mongers, the man who is above all politics, has suddenly completely changed his character and is lying through his teeth about the threat Iraq poses and our reasons for possibly going to war. Correct me if I'm wrong but that is what the ~50 or so of you who checked number 2 are saying, right?

You really need to quit using people in the Bush administration to justify #1. We were supposed to be looking for concrete evidence. I thought we covered this. Please examine all possibilities on an even level or admit that your not interested in unbiased discussion.

It is not possible to determine motivation without examining their words and actions. Please contribute something to the thread or move along.

I am contributing a great deal by keeping the discussion unbiased. You keep trying to prove the Bush administrations motives by saying "because they said so" which is ridiculous. If you are truly interested in unbiased discussion then cut the crap.

If you are truly interested in adding anything to this thread then do so. I don't remember asking you to become the moderator here and your services in that capacity are neither required nor desired. People have posted their opinions on the subject and I have not singled them out for discussion. What I am looking for is solid evidence that the admin. is lying about their position. Coming in here and saying "well you haven't posted any solid evidence that their telling the truth either" is not adding to the thread. It only makes you appear to be the obtuse fscktard that you apparently are without the ability to answer the question. If you can't answer it, move along.

What are you adding to the thread besides "they said so" which makes you look like a major fscktard and an idiot. You posted a question with two choices, while you are only interested in solid evidence for one of them. My pointing out the biased agenda is a much more worthy contribution than your repeated "they said so" crap. Your obtuse habit of stroking the genitalia of the administration shows that you are without the ability to answer the question. if you can't answer it then quit spewing crap.

 

[UltraQuiet]

What are you adding to the thread besides "they said so" which makes you look like a major fscktard and an idiot. You posted a question with two choices, while you are only interested in solid evidence for one of them. My pointing out the biased agenda is a much more worthy contribution than your repeated "they said so" crap. Your obtuse habit of stroking the genitalia of the administration shows that you are without the ability to answer the question. if you can't answer it then quit spewing crap

OK maybe you should quit sucking whoevers d!ck it is that you're sucking and try to pay attention to the question at hand. The question is "Does anyone have any solid evidence to back up answer 2?" We've long since passed trying to back up the first answer with solid evidence (well everyone except the resident oligophrenic - flavio) and have moved on to the second question. It is a given that we only have the "word" from the admin. about motive. Does anyone have anything more to substantiate number 2?

 

[etech]

To me it all boils down to this one very simple question.

Do you believe that Saddam is knowingly and intentionally holding on to weapons banned by the cease-fire agreement he signed to end the Gulf War?

Yes or no?

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

What are you adding to the thread besides "they said so" which makes you look like a major fscktard and an idiot. You posted a question with two choices, while you are only interested in solid evidence for one of them. My pointing out the biased agenda is a much more worthy contribution than your repeated "they said so" crap. Your obtuse habit of stroking the genitalia of the administration shows that you are without the ability to answer the question. if you can't answer it then quit spewing crap

OK maybe you should quit sucking whoevers d!ck it is that you're sucking and try to pay attention to the question at hand. The question is "Does anyone have any solid evidence to back up answer 2?" We've long since passed trying to back up the first answer with solid evidence (well everyone except the resident oligophrenic - flavio) and have moved on to the second question. It is a given that we only have the "word" from the admin. about motive. Does anyone have anything more to substantiate number 2?

We've long since moved on from #1? Says you?

Ok then, if you want to agree on the notion that no concrete evidence to substantiate #1 exists then proceed to lick Sohmers anus.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is, of course, the North Korea problem here. A lot of the supposed reasons we are going to war in Iraq apply to NK but there we persue a different strategy. That only adds to the feeling that the stated reasons and the real ones aren't the same.

The administration isn't going to tell us it's oil if it IS oil are they? We have definite historical limits on what conditions we use military force. Iraq may look like a wonderful plum for America's long term economic and stragetic welfare that may just be too tempting to resist. Power corrupts, and when a wrong makes such an obvious right, how many will fall to temptation. Because these questions are hard to answer, you play by the rules so you don't raise doubts and creat appearances.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

What are you adding to the thread besides "they said so" which makes you look like a major fscktard and an idiot. You posted a question with two choices, while you are only interested in solid evidence for one of them. My pointing out the biased agenda is a much more worthy contribution than your repeated "they said so" crap. Your obtuse habit of stroking the genitalia of the administration shows that you are without the ability to answer the question. if you can't answer it then quit spewing crap

OK maybe you should quit sucking whoevers d!ck it is that you're sucking and try to pay attention to the question at hand. The question is "Does anyone have any solid evidence to back up answer 2?" We've long since passed trying to back up the first answer with solid evidence (well everyone except the resident oligophrenic - flavio) and have moved on to the second question. It is a given that we only have the "word" from the admin. about motive. Does anyone have anything more to substantiate number 2?

We've long since moved on from #1? Says you?

Ok then, if you want to agree on the notion that no concrete evidence to substantiate #1 exists then proceed to lick Sohmers anus.

All I know is that there is too much licking, sucking and stroking in this thread!

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

What are you adding to the thread besides "they said so" which makes you look like a major fscktard and an idiot. You posted a question with two choices, while you are only interested in solid evidence for one of them. My pointing out the biased agenda is a much more worthy contribution than your repeated "they said so" crap. Your obtuse habit of stroking the genitalia of the administration shows that you are without the ability to answer the question. if you can't answer it then quit spewing crap

OK maybe you should quit sucking whoevers d!ck it is that you're sucking and try to pay attention to the question at hand. The question is "Does anyone have any solid evidence to back up answer 2?" We've long since passed trying to back up the first answer with solid evidence (well everyone except the resident oligophrenic - flavio) and have moved on to the second question. It is a given that we only have the "word" from the admin. about motive. Does anyone have anything more to substantiate number 2?

We've long since moved on from #1? Says you?

Ok then, if you want to agree on the notion that no concrete evidence to substantiate #1 exists then proceed to lick Sohmers anus.

All I know is that there is too much licking, sucking and stroking in this thread!

Likewise in politics, including every country as well as the U.N.!

 

[Moonbeam]

The question, I think should be, what proof is there that Iraq is a direct threat to the US. I don't feel threatened. Al Quaeda is a threat. If we can make Pakistan a buddy why not Iraq?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: etech
To me it all boils down to this one very simple question.

Do you believe that Saddam is knowingly and intentionally holding on to weapons banned by the cease-fire agreement he signed to end the Gulf War?

Yes or no?

I'm not choosing an option because I truly don't know. I would love to believe our president but his methods concerning this whole fiasco leaves me with some doubt for whatever he says about Iraq. I realize there are people here who don't have a problem with his methods and words, and I respect that. I, on the other hand, am a little leery of his motives. I don't want to be...I'd love to be able to believe that "because he's a threat to us and our allies" is the only motive behind his seemingly obsession with attacking Iraq. However, because of the fact that I have so many unanswered questions regarding his methods, it's only reasonable to question his motives.

etech - Though you ask a good question, I don't think it really pertains to Dave's poll. BTW, is it possible for Saddam to intentionally yet unknowingly hold on to weapons?

 

[Gaard]

Sorry Dave. Didn't mean to kill your thread.

 

[da loser]

it just comes down to whether you believe the us government or not. Those that preach the oil reason have a large distrust of the government. #1 is valid in the light of 9/11 in the fear that not doing something pre emptive will be disasterous later. Proponents are those who believe the US is a just country with just leaders #2 is valid in the light of a us conspiracy to control the world. Proponents are those who are against the US. It's really simple, who do you trust as your valid source of information. It is hard to convince someone who believes that the government is truthful, when there have been lies in the past. What I find interesting is how these same people are able to find the good in the most evil of people, yet are unable to see any good in generally good people.

The problem with #2 is that it will happen. Iraq's oil will be sold on the market, and whoever sets up the initial government will of course get preferential treatment. There are very few companies with the expertise to build the infrastructure for oil, so of course you can blame the west. To prove that this is not the case for war is hard since it will happen, I believe, yet the same argument can be made for #1. Iraqis will live better lives just as before the Saddam regime as well as Americans.

Attacking North Korea is ludicrous, if the idea is for the safety of the American public. You're looking at hundreds of thousands of deaths on the American side, and possible a million on the North Korean side. This is not an acceptable solution, since the current situation is better.

The debate should be whether we go to war no on the grounds of oil, but whether a war will cause a lot of human suffering and deaths. I believe in more mainstream circles, this is the case in the mainstream media. A war could possible kill many US soldiers and perhaps Israel might enter which opens another bag of problems, as well as massive civilian casualties due to Saddam's placement of targets. These possibilities should be the reasons for not going to war, not the threat of controlling the oil.