What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TechnoButt

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2002
4,007
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Bush was wrong. 100% wrong.

What exactly was Bush wrong about? Weapons of Mass Destruction?
The justification used for invading Iraq was the known stockpiles of WMDs and other known "evidence" of reconstituted BW/CW/Nuclear weapons programs.

He had live SCUDs, those were banned by the UN after the invasion of Kuwait. We found them.

He used Serin gas on his own people, effectively attempting racial cleansing genocide. If that's not a WMD with intent, I don't know what is?

This has been proven to be a complete and utter fabrication and exaggeration of dubious intelligence.
The intelligence was flawed. That sucks. Does that mean we don't listen to what intelligence we have and act on it? Of course not. The justification of going to war was that the UN was being blocked by countries with Veto power that chose to turn a blind eye rather than do what needed to be done (can you say, "France"). The only justification we needed was why do we do this without UN Sanction.. the answer is, "Because no arrogant Frenchie with a financial conflict of interest (read: buying Iraq oil during UN Embargo) is going to Veto our: 1) moral responsibility to stabilize the middle East and put down Tyrannical Dicatorships that affect our way of life economically or otherwise and 2) responsibility to the people of the United States to remove a threat to our safety at home or abroad.

Why now? 09/11. It's simple. The rules have changed for how we deal with the world. We had begun to turn a blind eye to problems that plagued the rest of the world (and even our holdings in other countries - terrorism, including our own embassies). After 9/11, you can bet your ass the United States is in an ongoing hunt to shut down terrorists where ever they may be. If you're foolish enough to be on our list of unrecognized sovereignities and our flawed intelligence says you're harboring terrorists and other groups that threaten American safety at home and aboard, yes we are going to step on you. Our safety, at home and abroad, is worth any price. Are democracies safer for US citizens, you betcha.

Ergo, this war can never be justified.

The war is justified to me because Iraq has hope where it had none before and Democracy has a slippery foothold in the area of the world that offers the most resistance to change and has a culture most diametrically opposed to our way of life.

If the Iraqis wanted democracy, they'd have found a way to get it. We did back in the late 18th century.

We had help when we needed it. Now we give it when we can. Probably not as often as we should. France helped us out of a combination of Greed and Goodwill, so now we in turn give this gift as often as we can find the time and resources to do so.

On a personal opinion note: US Recognized Sovereignity inherently brings responsibility. One of those responsiblities is to not harbor subcultures that strive to remove basic freedoms from peoples, especially peoples outside their own borders. Some countries are savvy enough to put on airs for the US (Read: Saudi Arabia) while quietly supporting or turning a blind eye to those subcultures within their borders (terrorists). Hussein was too vain to lie to us, so we ceased to recognize his Sovereignity. The United States made the decision to transfer our recognition of sovereign control of the area known as Iraq to the people who decide to show up for an election once we remove the Dictator/King/Military Overlord. If they make a bad decision, we'll be back.

 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
I know don't TechnoAss, he was obiviously wrong about WMDs Destruction. He purposely mislead people into putting a link with AQ and Saddam.

So what if he had live SCUDs? He asked him to destroy those and he did. He used gas on his own people? That was more than 10 years ago, what good is going to come out of invaded him for something he did 10 years ago? Why is it my problem that the world can't get along?

Intelligence was infact flawed, thats correct. The only problem is Bush and his adminstration haven't said that they where wrong. Bush even made jokes about not being able to find WMDs, thats sick. We're going to hunt down terrorists? What ever happenend to OBL?

Iraq had plenty of hope! They've got support from the United States, we had plenty of No-Fly Zones!

 

TechnoButt

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2002
4,007
0
0
Originally posted by: alexruiz
This is going to be fun! OK, if I am the idiot, tel me please how the stocks have been behaving right when the agression was planned all the way to this day. Furthermore, go back to close when the illegal invasion started. Tell what were the prices of Exxon, chevron, Texaco and similar. you are the idiot, as you don't know how to read what I wrote. Smart investors bank on opportunity, and sell on opportunity. The goverment has "subtle" ties to the oil industry, it should be a good time for the oil industry when a catalizer appears. If you bought stock of Exxon before 9/11/2001 and held it even after the rough ride, YOU are the IDIOT!!! Stocks are bought and sold on opportunity.

Give me the prices of the stocks by Mar 2003 and now or stick them up right where you know! Show me also the total numbers of the corporations. Stock prices are only half of the story. How about you show me the summary of the general balance? Profits versus revenue? You better have a big @$$, that is a lot of paper.......
Exxon Stock over 5 years:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=XOM&t=5y

ChevronTexaco Stock over 5 years:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CVX&t=5y

Basically, your lovely website claims the plans to actually attack Iraq initiated on 09/12/01. Those of us in the know are aware that plans reach back to the initial invasion of Kuwait, so 10 years prior and that powerful people in Washington were supporting the idea of invading Iraq to take Hussein out of power back then. So, I'm not sure when you want to start. Records that old are more difficult to find, so I'm going to go with 09/12/01 as a start date.

ChevronTexaco on 09/17/01: $35.94 per share (basically $35-36 anywhere that month)
ChevronTexaco on 02/03/05: $56.24 per share (I didn't see any splits, maybe you could find one at least to help your case?)
If you happen to buy at that average price and sell now, you'd make 57% over 4 years. Not a very good return on four years of investment.
Following similar trends as the DJI, indicating that war results did not have any more impact on CVX than it did on any other enterprise.

Exxon on 09/17/01: $37.53 per share.
Exxon on 02/03/05: $54.52 per share.
If you happen to buy at that average price and sell now, you'd make 45.2% over 4 years. Not a very good return on four years of investment.
Following similar trends as the DJI, indicating that war results did not have any more impact on XOM than it did on any other enterprise.

In fact, if you follow the ticker for the 5 year period, the war actually coincides with a severe downward trend in oil stock prices until January 04, when the whole market started to turn around. And yes, OIL has done better than many other segmenets of the market SINCE JANUARY 04, but Information Technology has dwarfed it in growth and revenues even since OIL started back on the upswing.

To say the war is some sort of insider trading to make oil share holders rich is pretty damn ridiculous if you've got a clue how to read financials.

Now, as to SEC Filings for 03,02,01 (which I think you'll agree is when the war in iraq was the most significant in turns of war, prior to policing the nation and fighting remaining insurgants), mainly because I don't care enough about this argument to read the rest of them in the last 5 years, feel free at yahoo.com finance.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=XOM&annual
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CVX&annual

I don't see anything here that screams of growth that exceeds the growth in any other sector. The whole economy slowed down about the time of the war (actually just prior to the war, thanks for such a great job President Clinton, who is yet another democrat who takes office when the economy is just beginning to upswing and makes sure the downswing hits us square in the ass). Almost every sector (including energy, and specifically OIL, took a nosedive when we went to war.. all the way up until late 03. In 04 things started to turn around across the board (including energy and oil). Now, in 05, the economy is really starting to move.. I hope you have your house financed already).
You claim very little of the profit goes to the oil companies. Would you care to break it down comparing raw material prices (crude) versus final refined product? (gasoline, etc) Give me the number and prove it. The laws of offer and demand fon't apply to the imperial army, they just go and take it if they don't like the price. Well, the cannon fodder think they take and they liberate people. Have you seen the obscene amout of money halliburton has made with the invasion? I repeat, the benefits are intended for a few ones only.
It's pretty fvcking difficult to get information on private companies (ie, third world OPEC dictators personal business), but I assure you with every Saudi citizen getting a ~$20k per year reverse tax that there is quite a bit of money in the "pump crude out of the ground and sell on the OPEC price controlled market" business. I did my homework, now you prove me wrong on this topic (since, like most liberals you do such a good job of claiming facts and very poor job of actually understanding the information at hand).

Having fun yet? I bet the fun you're having is your private conversation with yourself that says, "Look, I got this idiot to actually research his claims and support his evidence.. isn't that funny?!". While, I promise all the conservatives who are reading this thread are going, "Right on, TechnoButt! Show him conservatives have brains, but actually know how to use them. BTW, want to come over and watch "American Dad" with me?"

As far as I'm concerned, this argument is one sided. Oil companies did not get rich from this war. Americans are not paying less for gas. Obviously that's not why we went to war.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
As far as I'm concerned, this argument is one sided. Oil companies did not get rich from this war. Americans are not paying less for gas. Obviously that's not why we went to war.

Yet, George Bush had geographical surverys done in Iraq 6 months prior to the invasion for what reason? What is the reason we invaded? There are VERY few people who would invade a country just based on morality.

Lets look at what we do know

- Saddam Wrongs
-He's a bad dude
-Killed a lot of Kurds in the 90s
-Invaded Kuwait
-Had some chemical weapons
-We haven't found any WMDs
-Not a strong supporter of terrorism
-Dismantled the missles that were banned
-Angry at UN Inspectors but they still searched around
-Has lots of oil
-No links to AQ
-No links to OBL

Now, why did we invade the country? What has Saddam done wrong in the past 10 some years that gives us a legitimate reason to invade his country.
 

TechnoButt

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2002
4,007
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
As far as I'm concerned, this argument is one sided. Oil companies did not get rich from this war. Americans are not paying less for gas. Obviously that's not why we went to war.

Yet, George Bush had geographical surverys done in Iraq 6 months prior to the invasion for what reason? What is the reason we invaded? There are VERY few people who would invade a country just based on morality.

I never said it was only because of morality. Morality plus significant economic interest in the middle east makes it a prime target for US sponsored democratic development. Look at the lesson of Japan. The Japan prior to WWII was very similar to Iraq: ancient cultural dictatorship, aggressive anti-capitalism motivations, Imperialist expansion intentions and invasions in their immediate area, suicidal zealous holy warriors sacrificing themselves to defeat what they were brainwashed to see as the evil enemy.

The US focused on taking down the Japanese Empire and replacing it with a more democratic, more capitalistic government. It has flourished and has engaged in 50 years of beneficial coexistence with the US. Is such a fate for Iraq so negative? The only difference (and it may be perceived as a big one) is Pearl Harbor. Should we have waited for 100% foolproof intelligence that Saddam had attacked a US embassy on foreign soil with Serin gas (like he did his own people) before we do the right thing? Of course the US (as the most powerful industrialized nation on the planet and thus the most dependent on the oil resources in the middle east) focused our moral efforts in an area where it would benefit us as well as the oppressed people. The bottom line is that we need the help of the Iraqi people as much as they need our help to make this coexistance work.

Lets look at what we do know

- Saddam Wrongs
-He's a bad dude
-Killed a lot of Kurds in the 90s
-Invaded Kuwait
-Had some chemical weapons
-We haven't found any WMDs
Not true. We know for a fact he had Serin and we found working Scuds pointed at Kuwait when we crossed the border.
-Not a strong supporter of terrorism
-Dismantled the missles that were banned
Prove to me that a man who uses terror on his own subjects is not a supporter of terrorism. The nature of terrorism is that it's difficult to define their high level allies. That's why it's effective. If we knew which governments/wealth sources supported terrorists, they'd be little more than cheap mercenary special ops forces. I agree we should improve our intelligence in this area, but I'm satisfied based on the hearings that we knew enough to point the finger at Hussein. Add that to his own history and his removal was LONG overdue.
-Angry at UN Inspectors but they still searched around
-Has lots of oil
-No links to AQ
-No links to OBL
A handful of inspectors against a whole country. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that kind of search is? We've got control of some 30% of the country with the full might of the American military and we've still not found the resources he used to build Scuds and produce Serin gas that we know for a fact he had at some point. Not having found them is not evidence that they do not exist. Were they oversold? Yes, it is possible that the intelligence was oversold. If you voted to go to war without knowing the facts (ie, your liberal Senators including Kerry and Kennedy), then how can you possibly blame the President for accepting the same oversold intelligence? What good is the system of checks and balances if the very people who are the most AGAINST Iraq after the fact didn't do what was necessary to discover these intelligence flaws BEFORE casting their 'check and balances' vote to stay home? Were they pressured by the American people? Did they succumb to political pressure? So you're going to vote someone into office for taking the "right" stand after the fact because they misunderstood the same intelligence and voted for the same invasion PRIOR to the actual invasion? You think this was all a Bush scheme because he likes the moral burden of sending hundreds of thousands of military personnel into the firey mouth of hell in the least stable part of the world fighting a suicidal zealous enemy? I don't believe it.
Now, why did we invade the country? What has Saddam done wrong in the past 10 some years that gives us a legitimate reason to invade his country.

If I commit murder today, but I live a perfect life in hiding for 10 years after I commit murder, does that mean I don't deserve a life in prison or even the death penalty? Of course it doesn't. 10 years of being a humanitarian wouldn't answer for the atrocities we all know he has committed in the past. This is the single most ridiculous argument about the war I've heard: the idea that somehow 10 years of being a 3 on a scale of 10 instead of a 10 on a scale of 10 as a evil dictator for a few years while the whole world is judging you somehow absolves you of the responsibility for what you have done. That's akin to a mass murderer wearing a nice suit and tie on his court day to get leniency from the judge. I call Bullshit.

Why do *I* think we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? I think our ability and plans to use Israel as a stabilizing influence on the middle east have fallen short of the plans. There is little argument that the Middle East is one of the hottest places on the planet with the potential for frequent and violent change. I think there is little argument that they have a culture that promotes warlords, oppression, and neo-feudal tribal governments. They also happen to be sitting on a wealth of natural resource that the rest of the world needs for industrialized, capitalistic economies. I think we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to have a viable excuse to keep a large contingent of American Military force on Middle Eastern soil right in the middle of a turbulent area so we can protect the flow of a natural resource that we depend too heavily on. Do I think we should do something about this dependency? Yes. Do I hate that we are so vulnerable to the whims of OPEC? Yes. Do I think we have more than the interests of the lives of the Iraqi's, Afghani's, Kuwaiti's, and so on? Yes. Do those goals have to be mutually exclusive? Of course not. In fact, there is a great deal of synergy with the plan to uplift democracy and the quality of life of the people in the Middle East and at the same time to develop a mutally beneficial capitalist exchange.

Do you like your Microwave? Do you like your video games? Do you like anything with these names on them: Sony, Hitachi, Samsung, Honda, Toyota, Suzuki, etc? Imagine what the people of the middle east could do for the quality of life for everyone in the world if their people were empowered with freedom, education, and a chance to work for their own benefit? Who knows what great products are going to originate in the Middle East once it becomes a democratic region where people can learn and think rather than subsist and try not to offend the regime in power. Are the people of the Middle East somehow less capable to do great things like Japan? Shouldn't we give them the chance?
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: conjur
Democracy in the Middle East? What's the benefit to us from that?

Do you seriously not believe democracy is a good thing? Would you rather there be a tyranny there under Saddam? Do you? Tell us.

Democracy anywhere is a wonderful thing, ask Japan and Germany that. Ask Taiwan that, ask Turkey that (one of the few Islamic democracies) how wonderful democracy is. We should be proud that America helped these people in setting up the first steps towards a democracy - voting. But after all, we should be proud of the Iraqi's who turned out in huge numbers to defy the terrorist thugs

Of course democracy is a good thing but the fact is we aren't going to invade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia anytime soon if at all because of it. Not unless they stop listening to us like Saddam did. Oh and people can democratically and pre-emptively vote themselves into a theocracy as shown by the results of Iraq's election.
 

edmundoab

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2003
3,223
0
0
www.facebook.com
well, even if he is right.. hundreds of death already happened to US soldiers..
and Iraqi civilians..lets not even talk about figures.

so much damage has been done.. and the question is still about whether he is right or wrong?
that whole country is in chaos
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
I think what he did and how we are using out troops is BS. God bless the soldiers, but I think W.Bush made a huge error in judgment.

Yes, so Sadam was a vicious dictator. But after seeing the lack of control in Iraq, a bunch of people acting like animals, I can see why Sadam had to be so vicious. Sadam was likely the only one who could of kept that country under control instead of the chaos state it is now.
 

TechnoButt

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2002
4,007
0
0
Originally posted by: edmundoab
well, even if he is right.. hundreds of death already happened to US soldiers..
and Iraqi civilians..lets not even talk about figures.

so much damage has been done.. and the question is still about whether he is right or wrong?
that whole country is in chaos

Change is painful. That's a simple fact of life. Bigger change is usually more painful. That is the tendency of life.

If what Bush has accomplished as the figurehead for our nation in Afghanistan and Iraq are not "right" in your mind, then I suspect you're not American. If you are, perhaps you should consider moving to a less motivated, less morale country. France, since WWII, comes to mind.

Originally posted by: Regs
I think what he did and how we are using out troops is BS. God bless the soldiers, but I think W.Bush made a huge error in judgment.

Yes, so Sadam was a vicious dictator. But after seeing the lack of control in Iraq, a bunch of people acting like animals, I can see why Sadam had to be so vicious. Sadam was likely the only one who could of kept that country under control instead of the chaos state it is now.

I'm thankful for the efforts of our troops every day. I wouldn't like to trade places with them. They have a hard job. The bottom line? We have a volunteer military, and part of what the military gets paid to do is to risk their lives defending freedom and the interests of the United States of America abroad. There are specific arms of the military that are charged with defending the US internally outside of war times. The National Guard and the Coast Guard. Has Bush abused the National Guard? Yes. I guess he thinks tough times call for tough decisions.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: TechnoButt
Originally posted by: edmundoab
well, even if he is right.. hundreds of death already happened to US soldiers..
and Iraqi civilians..lets not even talk about figures.

so much damage has been done.. and the question is still about whether he is right or wrong?
that whole country is in chaos
If what Bush has accomplished as the figurehead for our nation in Afghanistan and Iraq are not "right" in your mind, then I suspect you're not American. If you are, perhaps you should consider moving to a less motivated, less morale country. France, since WWII, comes to mind.
Here we go. You dare voice an opinion counter to the Bush-God?!?!? Traitor!!


:roll:
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
But, and you know this is true, no claim of WMDs and no Yes vote.

No, you DON'T know it's true. You SUSPECT it's true, but you don't KNOW it is true. Unless you can prove some inside line into the minds of the hundreds of members of congress, your statement is pure conjecture.

Try for once to be honest and admit that YOU think the vote would have been no instead of yes, based on your perception of the situation. Because it's plain enough for all to see: You don't know sh1t.

Jason
Try for ONCE to admit that the FACTS state the OBVIOUS that there would have been NO vote if there was no claim of WMDs.

You really don't know sh1t.

I bet $20 you have no idea what Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz said.

You know what you're like? A televangelist. You want to spew and spew and spew your trash, not be bothered with backing it up in any way, shape or form, and then just scream "It's obvious!". You're an idiot, Conjur, pure and simple. You want an example of something obvious? Existence Exists. THAT is obvious. Whether the vote would have been for or against helping to liberate a brutalized people is FAR from obvious.

Oh, and here's something else that's obvious: You're a FRAUD, a PHONY and sad excuse for what passes as an American today.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Ok, one more time for the incredibly dense:

Conjur did not back up his statements concerning Bush's claims seeking the authority to use force against Iraq in any concrete way because he can't.

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Corrected.

Jason
 

TechnoButt

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2002
4,007
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TechnoButt
<blah blah rah rah blah blah snipped>

Another "ends justifies the means" Bush-God fanboi apologist.


:roll:

LOL, you are one of the worst arguers I've ever seen. I methodically shoot down your poorly supported arguments and you're dissenter hype and *this* is the response I get for my efforts.

In this case, yes, the ends do justify the means. Does that logically extrapolate to include every situation in the world, suggesting we should invade every country that is not already a free democracy to prop up a burgeoning system? Of course not. In Iraq, consider it's critical location in the world, the history of it's regime, the significant value of the natural resources at stake, and the far reaching effects of terrorism originating from a cultural area that could be stabilized and changed by our actions? Yes, the ends, in my opinion, do justify the means this time.

Bush is not a God in my eyes. Hell, he's not even that great of a President. His techniques are a bit blunt by comparison to Reagan or Nixon, but that does not make him a bad President by any means. I think he's doing what he was elected to do in a critical time in our history. That's why I voted for him, twice.

Apologist? Perhaps so. I'm sorry you like to grab the attention on this board with regurgitated liberal complaints. The bottom line: If Bush is so bad, why can't you motivate the masses to vote for your ticket? Any political scientist will tell you that increasing poll count tends to favor liberal tickets. Why did that not work in 2004, even with the support of almost every major Hollywood figure and almost every Musician? Why didn't it work with a grass roots campaign? If Bush is so bad and so wrong and is taking such advantage of this country, what motivated record poll turnout in 2004 to vote him back into office? If the same people had voted the second time around as the first, perhaps I could say preservation of the status quo. The fact is, *NEW* people showed up to vote for Bush after all of these things occured and were twisted by liberal media. Sounds to me like the average American, God Bless Them, trusts their President more than the major media outlets (which to be honest, suprised the hell out of me... that election restored my faith in America as a moral nation). But that's another thread.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
But, and you know this is true, no claim of WMDs and no Yes vote.

No, you DON'T know it's true. You SUSPECT it's true, but you don't KNOW it is true. Unless you can prove some inside line into the minds of the hundreds of members of congress, your statement is pure conjecture.

Try for once to be honest and admit that YOU think the vote would have been no instead of yes, based on your perception of the situation. Because it's plain enough for all to see: You don't know sh1t.

Jason
Try for ONCE to admit that the FACTS state the OBVIOUS that there would have been NO vote if there was no claim of WMDs.

You really don't know sh1t.

I bet $20 you have no idea what Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz said.

You know what you're like? A televangelist. You want to spew and spew and spew your trash, not be bothered with backing it up in any way, shape or form, and then just scream "It's obvious!". You're an idiot, Conjur, pure and simple. You want an example of something obvious? Existence Exists. THAT is obvious. Whether the vote would have been for or against helping to liberate a brutalized people is FAR from obvious.

Oh, and here's something else that's obvious: You're a FRAUD, a PHONY and sad excuse for what passes as an American today.

Jason
I've been given vacations for similar remarks.

The rest of your insult speaks VOLUMES as to the LACK of your character.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: bamacre
Just unreal. I just cannot believe that people blind themselves to the fact this war was supposed to be 99% about getting rid of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD. Tons of this. Gallons of that. "We know where they are."

It's sad, Conjur, sometimes I feel like saying "F it," too.

If they don't get it by now, they never will.

What's "just unreal" is your blind rage that leads you to proclaim, in the face of an opposing fact, that this was all about WMD's. Your comment above, that the war was 99% about WMD's, is the closest you have come to telling the truth. Conjur doesn't even bother going that far. I'm certainly in agreement that MOST of the reason was for WMD's, but it wasn't the ONLY reason, not even from the outset.

And from the outset, I didn't give a damn about WMD's in the least because I was always fully confident that there was jack sh1t that Saddam could do to the continental US even in his wettest dream. For some people, myself included, the removal of a TYRANT and the LIBERATION of his people is REASON ENOUGH.

The thing I find to be most astonishing about this entire never-ending argument is how disingenuous people on both the R side and the D side are about this entire scenario. You're both quite pathetic, really.

Jason

I happen to be on the R side. So forget about blind hatred. I've never voted for a Democrat my entire life (though I wouldn't mind it, depending on the candidate).

Even if Liberation is the main goal, the American people shouldn't be lied to about it. We have the right to know the truth whenever that truth is know. For, as a people in a democracy, it is OUR ultimate decision on whether our government decides to invade Iraq, and without all the necessary information, we cannot make a valid decision.

If we allow Liberation as a hidden agenda behind a false claim of WMD, we give our government the opportunity to do things we would ordinarily vote against. In case, Iraq. This is not a democracy in action.

Actually it is our ultimate decision, and we elected the President and Congress to render that decision for us. We put them in positions of authority where they have access to information we don't. We elect people who are more educated in politics, history, philosophy and yes, ethics (not that they usually follow those ethics) than most of us. It is ARROGANT and DISHONEST to assume that any among us knows more about the situation in the world abroad than those WE put in government. I daresay we shouldn't take the position of imbeciles (like, for example, that wife-beating ass Sean Penn and his "actors knew there were no WMD's") to mean more than they do. The whole "liberate Iraq" argument, while NOT the top argument presented, was nevertheless PRESENTED as one of the reasons why we were going to Iraq.

You'd have to be a LIAR like Conjur to try and make the claim that "Only one reason was ever given."

Jason
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: bamacre
Just unreal. I just cannot believe that people blind themselves to the fact this war was supposed to be 99% about getting rid of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD. Tons of this. Gallons of that. "We know where they are."

It's sad, Conjur, sometimes I feel like saying "F it," too.

If they don't get it by now, they never will.

What's "just unreal" is your blind rage that leads you to proclaim, in the face of an opposing fact, that this was all about WMD's. Your comment above, that the war was 99% about WMD's, is the closest you have come to telling the truth. Conjur doesn't even bother going that far. I'm certainly in agreement that MOST of the reason was for WMD's, but it wasn't the ONLY reason, not even from the outset.

And from the outset, I didn't give a damn about WMD's in the least because I was always fully confident that there was jack sh1t that Saddam could do to the continental US even in his wettest dream. For some people, myself included, the removal of a TYRANT and the LIBERATION of his people is REASON ENOUGH.

The thing I find to be most astonishing about this entire never-ending argument is how disingenuous people on both the R side and the D side are about this entire scenario. You're both quite pathetic, really.

Jason

I happen to be on the R side. So forget about blind hatred. I've never voted for a Democrat my entire life (though I wouldn't mind it, depending on the candidate).

Even if Liberation is the main goal, the American people shouldn't be lied to about it. We have the right to know the truth whenever that truth is know. For, as a people in a democracy, it is OUR ultimate decision on whether our government decides to invade Iraq, and without all the necessary information, we cannot make a valid decision.

If we allow Liberation as a hidden agenda behind a false claim of WMD, we give our government the opportunity to do things we would ordinarily vote against. In case, Iraq. This is not a democracy in action.

Actually it is our ultimate decision, and we elected the President and Congress to render that decision for us. We put them in positions of authority where they have access to information we don't. We elect people who are more educated in politics, history, philosophy and yes, ethics (not that they usually follow those ethics) than most of us. It is ARROGANT and DISHONEST to assume that any among us knows more about the situation in the world abroad than those WE put in government. I daresay we shouldn't take the position of imbeciles (like, for example, that wife-beating ass Sean Penn and his "actors knew there were no WMD's") to mean more than they do. The whole "liberate Iraq" argument, while NOT the top argument presented, was nevertheless PRESENTED as one of the reasons why we were going to Iraq.

You'd have to be a LIAR like Conjur to try and make the claim that "Only one reason was ever given."

Jason

ooo...now you're insulting and flaming me in replies to other peoples' posts.

Bravo!

:cookie:
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
Ok, one more time for the incredibly dense:

President Bush did not link the authority to use force against Iraq for any reason other than WMDs.

It doesn't get any clearer than that.
All the reasons were listed, therefor linked for the reason. It does not get any clearer than that.
Wrong again, as usual.


SEN. SARBANES: And I'm trying to section this out. You list five things. The first, of course, is the removal of all weapons of mass destruction, but I want to go to the others. Are we prepared to go to war to make sure they comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? You got it listed here.

SEC. POWELL: I got it listed as one of a number of issues that they are in material breach of. I don't think I linked going to war to any of them or any combination of them.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say "What they must do."

SEC. POWELL: Right.

SEN. SARBANES: So they must do that or otherwise, we're prepared to move against them?

SEC. POWELL: That's -- I don't think I said that, Senator.

SEN. SARBANES: Okay, but what about --

SEC. POWELL: I'm saying -- I'm identifying, if I may -- I'm identifying the specific U.N. resolutions that they're in violation of, and under U.N. resolutions, they are supposed to comply with those resolutions. They have the force of international law.

SEN. SARBANES: Well, you say, "If these demands on Iraq sound like regime change, then so be it." Will we go -- will we take military action or go to war in order to make them release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown? Would we do that?

SEC. POWELL: I think the operating clause in that that is of the greatest concern is the one having to do with weapons of mass destruction. It is unlikely that any of the others individually would lead to that kind of consequence.

SEN. SARBANES: So if you just -- I mean, if they did that, that would -- that's the one towards which war is directed.

SEC. POWELL: I think what we have to do -- no, I don't want to make that connection, Senator. I think what we have to do is look at their total response to these resolutions.

SEN. SARBANES: (Inaudible) --

SEC. POWELL: And the resolution of greatest concern, the issue of greatest concern are the weapons of mass destruction. Which is why in 1998, both the United States Congress and the previous administration made that the policy of the United States government.

SEN. SARBANES: Why are you listing all these things? If the mass -- if the weapons is the thing, shouldn't we -- do you want authority to use military force again Iraq from the Congress in order to make them comply with U.N. resolutions on illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? Do you want that authority?

SEC. POWELL: The principal reason for the authority is for the president to do what he needs to do to focus on the principal offense that he has been presenting to the nation, and that is weapons of mass destruction. The rest of those elements --

SEN. SARBANES: Fine. All right. Now, I want to take you through the rest of them. Do you want authority to go to war in order to accomplish compliance with those resolutions --

SEC. POWELL: The president hasn't asked for any authority -- the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements
.

PLAIN.

AS.

DAY.



WMDs were the ONLY reason linked to a request for authorization to use force.

Conjur, you are such a DUNCE. What have you posted here? Exactly what I've been saying all along: That MANY reasons were listed with the PRIMARY reason being WMD's. NO ONE has ever disputed that WMD was the PRIMARY reason, you ignorant fop. The only thing that's been said is that it wasn't the ONLY reason, and that much is clear enough just from what you posted! Do you EVER pull your head out?

I've said it before and I will say it again, not that you'll make an effort to COMPREHEND: WMD's are nice, and the President may think that's a good reason (and it's HIS decision, legitimately), but for me, and for many, many others, the LIBERATION of an OPPRESSED PEOPLE is REASON ENOUGH. I don't give a goddamn whether there are OR EVER WERE WMD's. In 1991 we did the WRONG thing by letting the UN tell us not to remove Saddam. We did the WRONG thing by telling the Iraqi's we'd help them oust Saddam if they rose up, and when they did we turned our backs on them and let them be SLAUGHTERED.

It's about damn time we did the RIGHT thing and got rid of Saddam. GUess what? Whether imbeciles like YOU agree with it or not, it's DONE, he's GONE and he's NOT coming back.

GET OVER IT.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
I don't recall the public being able to vote for the resolution, do you?

How long are you going to keep twisting and turning and changing the subject until you admit that WMDs were the only reason we went to war?

Yes, the Public WAS given a chance to vote--for their REPRESENTATIVES (we call them "Senators", "Congressmen" and "The President" in case you missed civics class, which you plainly did...). The job of the REPRESENTATIVES is to vote according to what they believe is the right course of action and in the best interests of their constitutents based on information available at the time.

We are (thankfully) NOT a Direct Democracy, and YOU are a good example of WHY that is so.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
I don't recall the public being able to vote for the resolution, do you?

How long are you going to keep twisting and turning and changing the subject until you admit that WMDs were the only reason we went to war?

The only one twisting and turning is you because of your continual LIE that WMD was the only reason we went to war.
How long are you going to continue to lie to not only yourself -but the rest of us?

CsG

Explain this then:
" the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements."

And what was one of the elements? WMD's. I suppose now you're going to say he wanted to go to war just for the hell of it all?

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Those claiming that the US invaded Iraq to enforce regime change on a sovereign nation are only underscoring the illegality of the invasion in the eyes of international and US law.

Bush is a war criminal.

Iraq was not a sovereign nation. NO dictatorship is a VALID SOVEREIGNTY. By LAW, ONLY the President has the authority to recognize or not recognize the sovereignty of another nation. Your approval or disapproval is utterly irrelevant. Accept it.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: GrGr
Those claiming that the US invaded Iraq to enforce regime change on a sovereign nation are only underscoring the illegality of the invasion in the eyes of international and US law.

Bush is a war criminal.
Exactly. I don't recall any UN resolutions demanding regime change.

Conjur: Screw the UN. It's a corrupt organization owned and operated MOSTLY by Socialists, Communists and various other flavors of dictators and/or their sympathizers. We do not NEED their approval for ANYTHING, and if we're smart, we'll leave the organization.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The other reasons were in the request to congress by Bush. You can try to try to dance all you want but we all know there were more reasons than just WMDs presented. Congress authorized it - take it up with them but don't continue to lie.

CsG

Honestly, CsG, I don't think he can even help it anymore. We've lost Conjur to his own delusions. It's like when someone pops an LSD tab and their mind gets stuck inside a lock or a glass of orange juice or something, except with him it's stuck on WMD's. It's the only thing that runs through his little mind anymore.

Sad, really.

Jason
 

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,836
556
126
Originally posted by: TechnoButt

Exxon Stock over 5 years:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=XOM&t=5y

ChevronTexaco Stock over 5 years:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CVX&t=5y

Basically, your lovely website claims the plans to actually attack Iraq initiated on 09/12/01. Those of us in the know are aware that plans reach back to the initial invasion of Kuwait, so 10 years prior and that powerful people in Washington were supporting the idea of invading Iraq to take Hussein out of power back then. So, I'm not sure when you want to start. Records that old are more difficult to find, so I'm going to go with 09/12/01 as a start date.

ChevronTexaco on 09/17/01: $35.94 per share (basically $35-36 anywhere that month)
ChevronTexaco on 02/03/05: $56.24 per share (I didn't see any splits, maybe you could find one at least to help your case?)
If you happen to buy at that average price and sell now, you'd make 57% over 4 years. Not a very good return on four years of investment.
Following similar trends as the DJI, indicating that war results did not have any more impact on CVX than it did on any other enterprise.

Exxon on 09/17/01: $37.53 per share.
Exxon on 02/03/05: $54.52 per share.
If you happen to buy at that average price and sell now, you'd make 45.2% over 4 years. Not a very good return on four years of investment.
Following similar trends as the DJI, indicating that war results did not have any more impact on XOM than it did on any other enterprise.

In fact, if you follow the ticker for the 5 year period, the war actually coincides with a severe downward trend in oil stock prices until January 04, when the whole market started to turn around. And yes, OIL has done better than many other segmenets of the market SINCE JANUARY 04, but Information Technology has dwarfed it in growth and revenues even since OIL started back on the upswing.

To say the war is some sort of insider trading to make oil share holders rich is pretty damn ridiculous if you've got a clue how to read financials.

Now, as to SEC Filings for 03,02,01 (which I think you'll agree is when the war in iraq was the most significant in turns of war, prior to policing the nation and fighting remaining insurgants), mainly because I don't care enough about this argument to read the rest of them in the last 5 years, feel free at yahoo.com finance.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=XOM&annual
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CVX&annual

I don't see anything here that screams of growth that exceeds the growth in any other sector. The whole economy slowed down about the time of the war (actually just prior to the war, thanks for such a great job President Clinton, who is yet another democrat who takes office when the economy is just beginning to upswing and makes sure the downswing hits us square in the ass). Almost every sector (including energy, and specifically OIL, took a nosedive when we went to war.. all the way up until late 03. In 04 things started to turn around across the board (including energy and oil). Now, in 05, the economy is really starting to move.. I hope you have your house financed already).

It's pretty fvcking difficult to get information on private companies (ie, third world OPEC dictators personal business), but I assure you with every Saudi citizen getting a ~$20k per year reverse tax that there is quite a bit of money in the "pump crude out of the ground and sell on the OPEC price controlled market" business. I did my homework, now you prove me wrong on this topic (since, like most liberals you do such a good job of claiming facts and very poor job of actually understanding the information at hand).

Having fun yet? I bet the fun you're having is your private conversation with yourself that says, "Look, I got this idiot to actually research his claims and support his evidence.. isn't that funny?!". While, I promise all the conservatives who are reading this thread are going, "Right on, TechnoButt! Show him conservatives have brains, but actually know how to use them. BTW, want to come over and watch "American Dad" with me?"

As far as I'm concerned, this argument is one sided. Oil companies did not get rich from this war. Americans are not paying less for gas. Obviously that's not why we went to war.

You make me laugh! I agree it is one sided as you keep avoiding question and focusing narrowly on some other stuff.

- I asked to compare the data right before the invasion. According to the chart you provided by Mar 2003 the Exxon stock was close to $35. By Jan 05 is is almost $55. Calculate the return in 22 months. Why do you insist in going longer? Chevron (with closer ties to the goverment) was ~$34 by Mar 03, now at $57. Any decent broker buys and sells on opportunity For the average folk, you start investing at the catalyst point, and that was the start of the invasion. Stocks have always been for fast growth (~45% is 22 months is not slow) If you want security get precious metals, certificates or some other form or bonds.

- Now, the average investor, the one who banks on opportunity wasn't the target of the gains. You still didn't show the most basic measure of corporate sucess. Profits versus revenue You, the "fanatic with brains" forgot to get this very basic fact from the fortune or forbes website. You claim you know how to read the information, but you still ignore the fact that stock price is speculation by a bunch of "experts" who try to give a value based on "analysis" (which is mainly opinion, as you can witness by AMD's stock price....) Profits are still what make or break a company. Write a few "capital expenses" and huge profits turn into very little stock price gain. You claim you know the rules of the game, but got narrow vision of "stock rules". Despite that, The most profitable companies in the world lately have been...... Yes, the oil companies. that can be very easily confirmed just by looking at the global 500 from fortune.

- You insist in getting with the OPEC countries and even self- praise yourself "we neocons know how to use the brains". Why should I mess with the Saudi information that you claim you know because you did your homework when that is NOT what I wanted? I asked for the differential in raw material price versus the price of the final refined product Whatever the saudis do whith the money they get for what they sold is their business. Why didn't you get this information?

- You still haven't replied why "freedom forces" put in place Pinochet, Batista or Somoza to name a few. Neither you replied to why Franco was ally of the "freedom forces". "Moral people do what is right" Still waiting (not to mention the teaser I threw of how the moral people in the "land of freedom" allowed slavery for over 90 years, segregation for over 190 and virtual extermination of their land ancesters...) How is that moral?

- One more teaser. Did you ever had a chance to see the budget of the USA? Did you notice the percentage that the weapons expenses account?

- Another teaser. Wanna talk about Halliburton financials? I agree, gas prices are high, but thwey were never intended to be lower.

If you are going to reply again, get back with concise answers, not vague cr@p. Holding stock for 5 years as small invester? Only a retarded does it. "A company is not making that great money because the stock price jump is not that spectacular" The true owners are laughing their @$$ out of this one.


On a side note, I must acknowledge that you are trying to get the information that defend your view. That is commendable. But that is only part of the solution. Get the complete information, get the complete picture and link the elements. You focused too much in micro-stuff while ignoring the macro stuff. Good try anyways! Not your average neocon.


Alex
PS. finace my what? Oh, I get it. I forgot the way of life up north is debt. My house is truly mine, it has been that way since I got it. I don't borrow my house from the bank and claim it is mine.....