What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur

Explain this statement:

"the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements."

ANY of the elements. You know, ONE of those elements was WMD's. Explain that one, please? If you're going to hinge your entire argument on THAT sentence, then you'd better explain how Bush "pinned it all on WMD's" when this statement is plain that authorization was pinned on NONE of them.

You are a poor excuse for a debater, you know that?

Jason
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
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

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Jason = poster child for the reading impaired
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Stop dodging.

Explain the statement.

Keep this in mind, oh King Obfuscator, Colin Powell's testimony before the Senate determined how the Senators were going to vote on the resolution. Note how Colin Powell says the ONLY item linked to the request for authority to go to war is WMDs.

No, he said that Authorization was linked to NONE of the elements. You can't just go and PICK the one you like, nitwit.

Jason
 

alexruiz

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

By what law? A nation is sovereign as long as it recognizes ITSELF as so. What, the USA own the world? As long as the international community recognizesd a nation, that is enough. If a big bully thinks it has the right to say who is sovereign or no, that is wrong. I know that you are used to your giverment telling you waht is right or worng, what to download or what to see, but that doesn't apply overseas.

Now, following your own logic, tell me why these dictators were recognized as valid: Pinochet, Batista, Somoza or Franco to name a few. Musharaf is a dicctator right now, and Pakistan is sovereign...... Why the discrepancy? Don't hide and answer these ones

You mention that the UN is useless, I agree. It didn't nothing to protect a member nation form the illegal invasion of another. It has done nothing to stop the imperial army to go and invade whatever place they feel like. Freedom stops where imperialism starts.....
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: spidey07
That's my main point. The reason WAS NOT WMD. The reason was to prevent a nation that wanted to harm us from helping others harm us.

The whole WMD thing was just something to focus on, to make the justification. But please stop calling it the reason.
HA! Harm us with what? WMDs!!!!!

No WMDs, no vote for war.

It's that simple.

No, it isn't that simple. I'm CERTAIN that WMD's were the EASIEST selling point-no question about that. But is it CERTAIN that it's the ONLY justification Congress would deem necessary? Far from it. I know you enjoy the thought that you live in this nice little black-and-white, simple world where you have all the answers and the world operates on simple, finite principles that you can easily define and predict in every issue, but I'm sorry to have to tell you: You're living in a fantasy world.

There's a lot more complexity to this issue than WMD's or no WMD's, and not ONE of us has the information that the elected officials have, and you, most assuredly, are NOT qualified to claim more and greater knowledge about the workings of this scenario than the rest of the world together.

Shame on you for being such an ignorant, ARROGANT ass.

Jason
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
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

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Jason = poster child for the reading impaired
No, it's you. From your own link:

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.

Now stop raising this strawman that Powell claimed this was ONLY about WMDs. It was not, as Powell stated very specifically.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Nice way to pick and choose a single quote and twist the meaning of it. You're missing the point. Powell isn't wanting to make a connection between Iraq meeting the demands of the UN resolutions to no longer having a need to invade. You can't deny from the multiple quotes I've posted that WMDs were the only reason Bush was linking to the request to use force.

If you do deny it, you're a moron.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: gutharius
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Stop lying - read the joint resolution authorizing the War.

CsG

It is not about what congress said it is about what the PRESIDENT SAID! Congress just pulled line a hook on his fishing pole can gave him what he wanted.

Ah, nice line of bvllshit there. The CONGRESS is responsible for what it votes for. It had every opportunity to vote NO on authorizing the president to act, it AGREED that the reasons presented were VALID reasons.

Jason
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
Nice way to pick and choose a single quote. You can't deny from the multiple quotes I've posted that WMDs were the only reason Bush was linking to the request to use force.

If you do deny it, you're a moron.
That single quote spells very specifically that Powell believed it was not just about WMDs. I'll post it once again for you:

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.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. Keep in denial though, conjur, and keep calling people names too. That makes you look really intelligent. :roll:
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: conjur
See my edited post above. You're still wrong and, hence, that makes you a moron. :p
/replies with typical conjur-like brilliance

:cookie:

You're just an anti-Bush-God fanboi apologist

And if you don't agree with me you're a doo-doo head too.

 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur

CsG
I've proven my stance multiple times. I've proven it's the truth. The fact you will apologize to no end for Bush is plain for all to see. And they all see it.


One more time:

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.
[/quote]

The only thing you've proven is that you're a dishonest fraud. There are LOTS of LEGITIMATE reasons to hate Bush. His domestic policy, his excessive spending, his religious influence on policy, his refusal to fund research that can save lives and ease suffering, his refusal to fight the illegal immigrant INVASION from Mexico...the list goes on. There are HUNDREDS of bills passed under Bush that are complete garbage and are far more hate-worthy than the Iraq issue. Whether there were WMD's or not is largely irrelevant at this point. What's important now is that the Iraqi's are free from a DICTATOR, they are on their way to having a VALID sovereignty, and while it's still way too early to tell, they appear to be moving carefully toward democracy and liberty rather than fear and oppression.

The war in Iraq was the RIGHT thing to do on many levels. Sure, they could have sold it better, but so what? The important issue is the final result. The same can be said of other issues (see above) that are FAR more critical to US citizens, and yet you don't say a PEEP about those issues but you keep harping on this DEAD HORSE endlessly.

It didn't go your way, get over it.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: spidey07
mission accomplished - we control the house, the senate, the presidency, sadam is out, terrorists are ineffective, afghanistan can't crank 'em out, now iraq. don't mess with the USA.


Mission accomplished, terrorists ineffective, ... you really are living in a fantasy world.

When did Iraq "mess with the USA?"

9/11. All the tree hugging hippies like to forget that small fact.

<cartman>
eh, hippies...they're everwhere....and they smell bad......get a job...
<cartman>

Let's not go into the whole "Iraq was responsible for 9/11" crap, shall we? You KNOW Conjur will never shut up about it, and we ALL know they WEREN'T responsible DIRECTLY for 9/11, only that Terrorists may have had a connection, perhaps as limited as merely funding or turning a blind eye to training camps, with the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein.

Let's NOT do this discussion again, it's a DEAD HORSE.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: pinktank
they had alternatives to mass destruction of people in order to get invisible wmds from them, not to mention the wave that'll follow this, ever been to africa and seen France's abuse of the minor countries, weekly coup-d'etats and "beneficial" use of goldmines and forests, just wathc Iraq for a while, you'll see

Hey, Saddam could have avoided the ENTIRE thing by packing himself and his tyrant sons up, loaded a couple of truckfulls of cash and headed to any of several neighboring nations that offered him asylum. He CHOSE to stay. Why? Because he's a megalomaniacal nutjob, simple as that.

Also, RUSSIA could have save some civilian lives by NOT selling satellite weapons targeting systems disruptors to Iraq. Iraq could also have saved civilian lives by NOT putting military targets like AA guns and tanks in the streets of RESIDENTIAL neighborhoods. It's clear enough that only ONE nation was concerned with sparing civilian lives where possible: The United States.

Jason
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
3,387
2,553
136
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
It's clear enough that only ONE nation was concerned with sparing civilian lives where possible: The United States

Wow.

Who do you think we sould invade next NK, Russia, Iran, any number of countries in africa ?

The funny thing is that the US did support Saddam at one time with more than food. So the US did give arms to Saddam and he probably used some of those weapons on his own people.

Bush did not put Iraq on the radar until after 9/11. Tell me o wise one what new things did Saddam do after 9/11 that justified the war ? If there was nothing new what discussions did the White House did they start with Iraq to stop all those things that he was doing for 30+ years ?

 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
It was NOT our responsibility. The Iraqis managed a nationalist state ~50 years ago, they could have done so again without the US having spent $160billion and losing 1,450 soldiers' lives and 250 civilian contractors' lives.

Nonsense, it was our responsibility because we said we would do it in 1991, we lead the Iraqi's to believe that we would back them up if they revolted against Saddam, and when they did we looked the other way and he SLAUGHTERED them. It was most *definitely* our responsibility to oust Saddam (and even MORE SO if you believe that we put him there in the first place!). We SHOULD have done it in 1991, but George Sr. cowed to the UN. Astonishing that his son, who is a collosal fvck up in almost every other area, could do ONE thing right.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
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:

ANd yet it seems an oddly appropriate response to you, who are little more than a broken record spewing the same "No WMD's!" crap over and over and over again. You don't bother to back up your statements with facts, you quote things that DON'T support your claims and then pretend that they do, you ignore facts that disagree with your position, etc. You're EXACTLY like the Pro-Bush robots but with your batteries in backwards, and worse, you're too damn stupid to see what the hell you are:

Hypocrite. Fraud. Joke.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Wow...what an original reply.

Took you a couple of days to come up with that, eh?



:cookie:

No, seconds actually. Unlike you, apparently, I have this thing called a "job", wherein I go to a location (hereinafter called "work") and perform tasks (hereinafter called "tasks", with that term defined to mean "network engineering functions including high level troubleshooting, systems design and implementation and server maintenance.". When I go there and do these "tasks", they give me what's called "Money" in exchange for my effort. Quite the ingenius scenario, really!

In addition I have this thing called a "life", wherein I have these real-life (read: not text-based) "friends and family" with whom I spend time. This weekend I attended a terrific LAN party (20 people! AWESOME!) with friends and family members, and then I spent the next day with my "Girlfriend" (You NEED one of these, TRUST ME!).

Unlike you, I, nor I suspect most of the other people here, don't have the time to spend typing drivel into the reply window 24/7.

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

How cute! The most DISHONEST member of the P&N forums giving me a lecture about *Character* content.

Now *that* is entertainment!

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

And in a surprise move from Conjur: Nothing of substance! WOW!

Jason
 

TechnoButt

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2002
4,007
0
0
Originally posted by: alexruiz

- 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.
You asked for the data from before the planning of the invasion, that goes back 10 years (or easily measurable according to conjur to Sept 12, 2001). You were vague. If you want to work from March 2003 to Jan 2005, that means you want to discount the spiraling stock values from 2001 to 2003. Why don't you give me a timeline of our activity in Iraq and show me how it correlates to making stockholders rich?

If you insist on looking at the polcing period in Iraq where we are training native security forces and trying to facilitate elections while suppressing insurgent attacks from 03/03 to 01/05, then I ask that you compare OIL/ENERGY stock performance to that of Down Jones Industrial, Standard and Poors, and Nasdaq to show me their trend is significantly different than every OTHER sector. Obviously improving stability and the chance of a future for democracy in the middle east (a significant source of energy resources) will have an effect on oil/energy stocks. Is the effect significant enough to say it is the whole reason we went to war? That's a pretty bold claim. Back it up with numbers.

- 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.
When I looked that the SEC Filings summaries (balance sheets) over the last few years for XOM and CVX, I didn't see any unusual trends. I saw steady growth in short term liabilities, long term liabilities, revenue, retained earnings, and cash assets. I didn't see anything that marked <10% growth (which I would expect if a war were to cause a boom in a single industry). If anything, all I saw was typical recovery from a slow US economy that gave many sectors profitable growth in 2003-2004 (look at technology for a comparison that will make you think we went to war so technology companies could get rich between Mar 2003 and Jan 2005, their numbers are even larger as far as I can tell).

- 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?
There is another piece of information needed to answer this question as you have rephrased it. Cost of raw materials against selling price of refined materials does not show profit. It shows both the costs of refining+profit. What I saw in the SEC Filings indicates an 8-10% profit margin during the growth years. That is good business, but not what I'd call a boom or a cashcow. I didn't bother with the information because you're question was about wether oil refining american corporations make more profit from oil than do Oil Czars. Oil Czars don't release their information, while US corporations answer to the SEC and their sharedholders. The comparison cannot be made. What I do see is that US Corporations pay a pretty decent wage to their people, while most Oil Czars oppress their countries and maintain a status quo far below the poverty line. I bet a large percentage of Iraqi's would gladly renounce citizenship under Hussein to move to any industrialized country to work for an Oil Refining Corporation. That indicates to me that the dictators are taking a larger percentage of the profits than the oil refining corporations. Is there a better way to judge without the numbers available? (yes, I now Saudi is marginally better than most with their reverse tax, but they are a minority).

- 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?

I did not claim every US action has been properly morally guided. The United States as you know us, as a world power seekingi to prop up democracy and humanitarianism across the globe did not exist until basically 1900. We laid the groundwork for being a benevolent world power. Name one world power that predates the US that was more benevolent and did more for the good of oppressed peoples? Are we perfect? No, but I think we're a far sight better than most countries out there in this respect. Have we made some mistakes, yes. Do our past mistakes automatically make efforts in Iraq a mistake? There is no logic to that. I can understand why you may fear this is a mistake, but let time judge that effort.

I won't pretend to be up to speed on the other dictators you mention. Just like the US, I have limited time and resources, so I can only focus on the issue most at hand at the moment, which I think is the decision to invade Iraq and was the outcome worth the effort. Was it the correct course of action? It's not a logical argument to say that "three previous failed attemps automatically make this a failed attempt".
- 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?

Show me the numbers. Don't just tease without backup.
- Another teaser. Wanna talk about Halliburton financials? I agree, gas prices are high, but thwey were never intended to be lower.
Show me the numbers. Show me definitively how their profits from rebuilding war ravaged areas offers any financial (or otherwise) benefit to Bush, Cheney, or his cabinet. By comparison, would you be happier if we did NOT rebuild after necessary damage was done in a warzone to effect change?

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.
This is the pot calling the kettle black. I've provided you links to the information you requested. You do the same. Show me where oil/energy is outperforming every other sector for growth in profits (or stock prices) against a timeline of the war. You made this argument, not me. I'm just asking you to back it up, and I'm even letting you set your own frame of reference. Show me one owner that made money by selling his stock (insider trade information is listed with the SEC). Show me one person who made considerable profit taking advantage of these "opportunities" as you call them.

In contradiction to your claims that "only a retarded does hold stock for 5 years [or longer]":

http://stocks.about.com/od/investingstrategies/a/Longterminvest.htm
Quote: Like the fabled tortoise that beat the hare in the race, the investor who stays in for the long term is more likely to achieve his or her goals than the investor who chases ?hot tips? for quick profits in the stock market.

http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/ask/archive/2005/q0127.htm
Quote: Over the long run, stocks have done much better than any other type of investment -- with large-company stocks averaging 10.4% per year since 1926 and small-company stocks averaging 12.7% per year, according to Ibbotson.

http://www.sherlockinvesting.com/
Quote: This is not the case. When you read about Warren Buffett you learn that he has been averaging around 30% in the stock market not for 10 years, or 20 years, but for 47 years! Not only that, he has been doing it with conservative, long-term investing.

http://ostg.pricegrabber.com/search_fullinfobk.php/isbn=007058043X/
Quote: "A simply great book."--Forbes [review of a book entitled:
Stocks for the Long Run
The Definitive Guide to Financial Market Returns and Long-Term Investment Strategies

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.

So far, I'm the only one actually providing information. You're just making false claims. You say Forbes says short term opportunistic investing is the correct way. I show you were he applauds a book stating the diametrically opposed theory. You say their gains are large. I say they're not out of reference with any other sector. Show me. I'm tired of doing research for you while you change arguments between responses. You defend your argument. Show me that oil companies or their primary shareholders made significantly more money than other companies during the same period. Show me they benefit on the short term from the war and the hiked gas prices. The information is out there, go get it. While you're at it, since you seem to be a fan of the Fortune website (and are thus a subscriber), please post for me the top100 performers from each year dating back to 09/11/01 for reference (it's not worth $9.95 for me to see their compilations, maybe it is to you since you mention it as your (or anyone's) source.

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.....

I'm not up North. I'm in North Carolina, and that's about as Southern Conservative as it gets. However, financing property is definitely not a bad manuever in the past 3 years. In fact, if I had clear title to any property in the last 4 years I would have locked in a low mortgage rate and put the money into places where it could far outpace the 5% rates mortgages are being made. In fact, I'm rushing to tie up a mortgage at the moment because interest rates are turning around pretty fast right now. Combine the tax breaks of mortgage with the opportunities for mid-term investing that are coming up and you can see why it would be a good time to move money around right now.

Although, I, like you, am averse to debt, however one of the basics of capitalism is to finance assets to create capital that can gain at a rate faster than inflation+finance rate. The property value is going to do it's thing wether the property is paid in full or financed, in other words you are going to develop equity from ownership of real estate in a way that is unrelated to how you have it financed (or not). So, in effect, if you have property worth $100k, and you let the money value of the property sit in the clear deed, you will only gain the increase in property value - inflation. However, if you put that $100k to work earning a return more than the finance rate (say, you borrow at 5% and put it to work earning a 12% return), you'll effectively gain the increase in property value as equity on the loan AND ~7% return on the $100k financed. That's just good business. But like most business, it carries with it a certain risk so you may be too risk averse to do this. That's a personal decision.
 

TechnoButt

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2002
4,007
0
0
Originally posted by: alexruiz
Now, following your own logic, tell me why these dictators were recognized as valid: Pinochet, Batista, Somoza or Franco to name a few. Musharaf is a dicctator right now, and Pakistan is sovereign...... Why the discrepancy? Don't hide and answer these ones

I'm not certain the US recognizes the power of these dictators as the seat of power for each of their respective sovereign nations. What are the details of our current trade relations? Show me the firm Whitehouse stance from the W. Bush administration that recognizes these governments as unlikely targets for democratic restructuring efforts. I'm not sure you're on track with your argument here. I don't think there is a difference.

Now, assuming you can show even one of them is more respected by the W. Bush administration than Hussein. Now logically explain why failure to recognize that evil dictator for what he is removes our moral obligation to do something about Hussein (who was our focus in the Iraq invasion).

I don't think the argument that we've done other things incorrectly is a valid argument that this action was wrong.


 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
It's clear enough that only ONE nation was concerned with sparing civilian lives where possible: The United States

Wow.

Who do you think we sould invade next NK, Russia, Iran, any number of countries in africa ?

The funny thing is that the US did support Saddam at one time with more than food. So the US did give arms to Saddam and he probably used some of those weapons on his own people.

Bush did not put Iraq on the radar until after 9/11. Tell me o wise one what new things did Saddam do after 9/11 that justified the war ? If there was nothing new what discussions did the White House did they start with Iraq to stop all those things that he was doing for 30+ years ?

I've said before and I'll repeat it for you now: We SHOULD have taken Saddam out in 1991.

As for who to invade next, I say Iran, but I also say: Use Neutron bombs first, send the soldiers in a few months when the radiation blows over.

Jason
 

TechnoButt

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2002
4,007
0
0
Originally posted by: outriding
Bush did not put Iraq on the radar until after 9/11. Tell me o wise one what new things did Saddam do after 9/11 that justified the war ? If there was nothing new what discussions did the White House did they start with Iraq to stop all those things that he was doing for 30+ years ?

This is quite simply untrue. There has a been a movement in Washington to decapitate the Hussein dictatorship since before Clinton. Clinton let the UN tell him what to do, rather than doing what was necessary. Bush was already beginning the plans to scale up the Iraq issue prior to 9/11. The terrorist attack mearly exascerbated the situation.

Ironic Source (liberal magazine): http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Chin110702/chin110702.html