But securing Iraqi oil will allow America to keep Saui Arabia and others honest for another 20 years, and that absolutely must be the case.
You're vastly over-simplifying the saudi relationships to bush admin officials and advisors, including Perle, the force behind anti-saudi sentiment in the US. Although I will concede this is the closest I've seen on AI to someone acknowledging a major part of the stategy.
Quote:
Saudi money will buy Al Queda a nuke as soon as such a weapon comes to market (if it hasn't already, but for lack of delivery).
yet again we see pakistan, which is vastly more important in a discussion regarding either al-qaeda and/or nukes, conveniently ignored.
So you know an Iraqi. Does anyone here not know someone from Iraq?
Quote:
the oppressed are the poor starving people living in iraq under an evil rule.
As many people around the world do. Do they not count?
Quote:
OIL OIL OIL how i am tired of hearing about how bush wants oil. I remember they said the same thing about the gulf war. well, in 1991 we won a war and got the oil. So if we were after oil would we have kept it instead of giving it back to the people after the fighting was over,
Of course, you apparently have an extremely simplistic understanding of business (and, therefore, the world in general). Let see one thing that did happen after the gulf war:
Quote:
Halliburton approved of the sanctions imposed on Iraq because as Dick Cheney explained, ?One major uncertainty is the potential negative impact on oil prices should Iraq reenter the market.? But at the same time, the morally amorphous company managed to work on both sides of the curtain. Detailed investigative reports by the Financial Times and the International Herald Tribune revealed that Halliburton, through two if its subsidiaries, skirted the sanctions on Iraq and did some $23.8 million in business with the ?evil? regime. The oil services company was paid to rebuild the very same Iraqi infrastructure that its CEO was complicit in destroying as defense secretary under Bush I. Interestingly, one month prior to the publication of these reports, Mr. Cheney had claimed: ?I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal.? Cheney's company did its business in Iraq through European subsidiaries ?to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardizing their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government,? (Risen 7-28-2002; Lee 11-13-2000; Bruno and Vallette 9-2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cavelli 11-19-2001)
The current strategy does involve more control over oil, a plan (official called the 'kissinger plan') that has been in the works and building support for 25 years.
BTW: you are aware that Kellog, Brown & Root, which is owned by Halliburton, has already been contracted by the US government to help with the rebuild, aren't you?
A bit like saying "If the Nazis hadn't murdered millions of Jews then they'd still be money-grubbing liars." Just as accurate, and just as offensive.
As far as I can tell, it was the Nazis that did the lying and the money-grubbing. Unless, you care to refute that, I really don't see where the analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
By the way, a "guerrilla" is someone who fights using a particular set of loose tactics. A "gorilla" is an endagered mammal with slightly more capacity for ordered thought then you.
Well, I?m glad you caught that spelling error and that me writing that at 3 am didn?t hamper your ability to understand my point.
Harrald, you still didn?t explain to us why you call yourself a Jew. Is it because the Koran refers to Moses and Abraham that you also consider yourself a Jew? Or is it because you are a bolding hooked nosed, money-grubbing liar, consider that a fitting description of a Jew, and therefore that makes you a Jew? Please answer and don't hide this time around.
I composed this 14 hours ago. Let's see if I can finally post...
Uh... because it's racist.
Not at all tonton.
Islam is an ideology. Just like Communism, Fascism, etc. I?m attacking that ideology, and not the color of the skin of those practicing it. Now, to you it might be politically incorrect to attack that ideology, but that?s your hang-up, not mine. The only thing remaining is whether you accept what I said is true. If you don?t, I can provide you with information elaborating on that point.
I would say that Saudi Arabia is the main force behind anti-saudi sentiment in the halls of US power. They've played the US, expertly. The US always suspected that was the case, but had to make nice for numerous reasons; now with the Saudis barely able to contain their visible glee at 9-11, palestinian suicide bombers, and Al Queda's ultimate ellusiveness, it's just become too much. The Bushes and Bin-Laden's hate each other, clearly, but money talks. Anyway, I don't think Pakistan is being overlooked. Pakistani's are much more amenable to "western" values than most of the middle east, their president/dictator (haha) seems to want to make a genuine effort to advance the country. However, there are many border towns that are highly sympathetic to extreme islamic groups, largely ignorant, and hostile to the idea of "America."
So if you say we must deal with other areas, I'll agree, but that doesn't mean you don't also have to deal with Iraq, if only to make it easier to deal with those other areas.
There seems to be an overriding academic sentiment that imperialism is bad. It hasn't been good in the last 200-300 years, but corruption flows both ways and for every imperial abuser you can find a dozen local tyrants at least as responsible for people's suffering as the so-called powers. In any event, the stakes have changed drastically in the last 50 years, especially in the last 10. We may have to live with some imperialist powers in exchange for a relatively safe world order. If you want to call such a thing imperialism, which is open to debate, but not illegimately named, so be it. I can accept that. The stakes are just too high now, it really is only a matter of time before chem/bio/nuclear weapons become available to those who know how to procure them. Ten years before Chernobyl, experts predicted such a disaster, 20 years before 9-11, industry experts warned of exactly those kinds of vulnerabilities, you wanna read what experts/analysts are saying about WOMD? Not gov't propaganda, but what gov't themselves would prefer people ignore -- fear is bad for business, you know? It isn't good.
If imperialism is the price for a greater measure of safety, then Hail Ceasar! Sign me up for one of the most benign empires one could hope for.
Well, you seem to desire proof on the battlefield. I would prefer proof be found, not provided during at battle at this point.
You missed the broad side of the barn by a mile. What I was saying is that this shows he doesn't have a big danerous arsenal. Besides I was talking about him attacking us ( if he's sooooooo dangerous ) over here. Because we're attacking him. Where's the threat?
Funny. First you ignore colonialism and the slave trade, then you call starvation a "root cause." This is right after an insult. You're a teenager, too, right? I sure hope so.
Again,
"The Problems in Africa is interlinked to this issue. The Islamization of that continent is at the root cause of the conflicts there, the disinvestment and the starvation"
As far as I can tell, it was the Nazis that did the lying and the money-grubbing. Unless, you care to refute that, I really don't see where the analogy stands.
The point is they are both racist lies. That Jews are money-grubbing and that Africans are cannibals.
(By extention you are a racist liar incidentally).
I would say that Saudi Arabia is the main force behind anti-saudi sentiment in the halls of US power. They've played the US, expertly. The US always suspected that was the case, but had to make nice for numerous reasons
What are you writing?!?! Where would you ever get the idea that there is a unified attitute towards Saudi Arabia, even within the top 10 of the Bush Admin? How could you even imagine thinking it is this simple, especially considering the New Yorker article last week on Perle's dealing with Saudis through his company Trireme (he is a private citizen, you know)? Perle is the driving anti-saudi force right now, and this is the farthest thing from a secret. Last week's article shows clearly why you can't even simplify Perle's relationship (which is the most extreme) into a monochrome explanation.
"The Problems in Africa is interlinked to this issue. The Islamization of that continent is at the root cause of the conflicts there, the disinvestment and the starvation"
Read it carefully this time.
You mock me because you are a poor writer?!
So I ammend my statement. Now read it as :
Funny. You ignore colonialism and promote a narrow minded racist explanation.* This is right after an insult. You're a teenager, too, right? I sure hope so.
*Your explanation would be strongly contested by African scholars. I know. Not only does my work contain the premier Africana library in the US (thus, a few of my co-workers are doctoral students on african politics, one even very influential in the implemeting the South African elections, and I have interviewed them for various projects of my own), but both my roommate and his sister are scholars on africa. Don't underestimate the resources of the people you try to BS on the internet.
Firstly, I did not mock you. Secondly, although English is not my first, nor second, nor third language, grammatically that sentence should not have confused you. You are either a careless reader, or your reading comprehension skills are very lacking, or you just like putting words in other people?s mouth and carry false accusations. Also, I'm curious, what in that sentence/paragraph made you think that I said anything other than the root cause of problems in Africa is the Islamization of that continent, causing conflicts, disinvestment and starvation?
Also, I'm curious, what in that sentence/paragraph made you think that I said anything other than the root cause of problems in Africa is the Islamization of that continent, causing conflicts, disinvestment and starvation?
This is quite incorrect.
I'll take a very few unconnected examples and offer brief explanations here. (You might have to join the dots yourself.)
Drought has caused millions of acres of agricultural land in the Horn of Africa and north Central Africa to be lost in the last two decades. (There is famine in Ethiopia and in the Southern African states of Malawi, Zambia and Lesotho today due to the failure of the rains two years ago, too.) The storms in South Eastern Africa devastated Mozambique, Swaziland and Madagascar four years ago, making millions hungry and investment difficult, since the infrastructure in the south of Mozambique had to be rebuilt. Soil erosion in South Africa and Ethopia is a big problem.
In Angola a civil war between a terrorist guerilla organisation called UNITA and the government, a sordid business to do with elected socialist governments and extra-national funding for murderers, destroyed the industry and tremendously fertile farmland of a prosperous country. Sierra Leone kinda similar.
The way Africa was divided into states dividing ethnic groups, mineral resources and agricultural land by European colonisation is responsible for the recent ethnic unrest on the Atlantic coast of Nigeria (where majority tribes find themselves governed from the capital by coteries of other ethnic groups) and the terrible violence in Central Africa of the last decade.
Nigeria has the oil to make it one of the planet's richest nations; it's poor because billions of dollars are in bank accounts in Switzerland, Germany, London and New York because of terrible corruption and inept economic policy.
Religion doesn't come in to any of these (very typical, randomly selected, examples.)
Islam, however, has been in Africa almost as long as Christianity. The library of Timbuktu, a world heritage treasure, contains ancient manuscripts (been looked after by the same family since the 1500s, I think) and the Swaheli language is practically Arabic. The Muslims and Jews of Algeria and Morrocco got on just fine (with butchers that were passed both halal and kosher, mixed bands, indistinguishable sirnames) until colonialism messed it all up after the Second World War. The 'Islamisation' of Africa was over hundreds and hundreds of years ago.
In short: corruption, weather, legacy of colonialism, ancient ethnic rivalries, you're an ignorant racist who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, etc.
The weather issue can be further evaluated as a direct consequence of Global Warming which as we all know results primarily from greedy Americans who consume copious amount of the Sludge of Great Value because they are lazy wasteful and greedy. Does their culture of self-righteous entitlement know no bounds?
So you know an Iraqi. Does anyone here not know someone from Iraq?
As many people around the world do. Do they not count?
the fact that I know a girl from Iraq has nothing to do with the point being made nor did i make reference to the rest of the world not counting. I was talking in responce to coments which were reflecting a belief that the US would do terrible things against the people of Iraq if we went to war, My point being that the common people of iraq are in favor of US intervention and war. My friend from iraq says that their family says that if no more than half of them die it will be worth it to get rid of Saddam. Pretty much every person from iraq who i have talked to is in favor of this war even though their own family members may die. the real tragedy would be to do nothing and to allow the situation to get worse.
your point to dispute me was unrelated to the topic, "Does anyone here not know someone from Iraq?
As many people around the world do. Do they not count?" is a weak attempt to avoid a topic with an irrealevent coment which aludes to having to relate to everyone in the world or something like that.
And yes, to answer your question the many people around the world do count which includes me, and my friend.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Of course, you apparently have an extremely simplistic understanding of business (and, therefore, the world in general). Let see one thing that did happen after the gulf war:[/B]
again you talk around the topic and somehow feel that you are making your point by making an unrelated insult. Somehow my not agreeing with you is evidence of my having an extremely simplistic understanding of business and the world in general. We were not even talking about business. Are you such a simpleton that you feal that everyone with a different opinnion than you is wrong. having to reply to a post to restate every point i have made is not a good use of my time. It was written clearly the first time. But it is my time to waste. I can only guess that you were responding to my quote
" terroririst are not these poor people that have been oppressed by the U.S.
they are the elite and the rich. most of them are highly educated. the oppressed are the poor starving people living in iraq under an evil rule."
which was in responce to a coment about how that terrorism was a result of the US oppressing a poor country givng them no choice than to lash out at us with violence.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
The current strategy does involve more control over oil, a plan (official called the 'kissinger plan') that has been in the works and building support for 25 years.
BTW: you are aware that Kellog, Brown & Root, which is owned by Halliburton, has already been contracted by the US government to help with the rebuild, aren't you? [/B]
Sigh... what I said was.. OIL OIL OIL how i am tired of hearing about how bush wants oil. I remember they said the same thing about the gulf war. well, in 1991 we won a war and got the oil. So if we were after oil wouldn't we have kept it instead of giving it back to the people after the fighting was over...
Yes of course the current plan does involve control over oil. Oil is the only resource in iraq and is the only chance the country has of becommjing a thriving society. This is not a hidden or obscure secret. in 1991 Saddam burned 700 oil wells. This is Iraq's only resource if this happens again it will be a disaster for iraq. And bush is actually trying to help the people of iraq. yes bush plans to rebuild the economy so that the country can have better schools, food, medicine, etc.
what! do you really think that when we gain control of the oil we are going to steal it from iraq?
Well i do not know everything but i do know that Saddam has proven to be worse than hitler and I know that we have been negoiating with iraq for more than 12 years and it has not done a thing. I also know that the people i know who have emidiate family members in iraq right now are in favor of the war and they thank god for bush and pray that their family comes out ok.
Comments
The Iraq campaign is not that war.
It is a campaign within that war. It follows a previous campaign
-- Afghanistan -- and it will be followed by other campaigns.
In other words, Iraq is a means toward an end. It is not an end
in itself. It achieves nothing definitive by itself. Its purpose
is to enable the United States to achieve other ends later, ends
that will bring the nation closer to winning the war -- or so
Washington hopes. It is useful to think of Iraq in terms of the
New Guinea campaign of World War II: U.S. and Australian troops
fought there not because of any intrinsic value in New Guinea,
but because of its geographic and strategic value. The New Guinea
campaign helped block a Japanese invasion of Australia and served
as a springboard for later offensives. New Guinea's value was in
what it made possible later on, not in its intrinsic value. It
was not a war, just a campaign within a war.
Iraq, too, is a campaign within a war. It will not, by itself,
settle anything.
They then argue that Iran is next.
I'm not sure why people keep insisting that this war is being conducted for the sake of Saddam and his accused WMD.
BTW: Stratfor is far from liberal. One commentary made was that bilx is now going to fade into "much-deserved obscurity."
Originally posted by Matsu
Giant, not exactly playing fair either.
But securing Iraqi oil will allow America to keep Saui Arabia and others honest for another 20 years, and that absolutely must be the case.
You're vastly over-simplifying the saudi relationships to bush admin officials and advisors, including Perle, the force behind anti-saudi sentiment in the US. Although I will concede this is the closest I've seen on AI to someone acknowledging a major part of the stategy.
Saudi money will buy Al Queda a nuke as soon as such a weapon comes to market (if it hasn't already, but for lack of delivery).
yet again we see pakistan, which is vastly more important in a discussion regarding either al-qaeda and/or nukes, conveniently ignored.
Originally posted by JC
A friend of mine is married to a girl from Iraq.
So you know an Iraqi. Does anyone here not know someone from Iraq?
the oppressed are the poor starving people living in iraq under an evil rule.
As many people around the world do. Do they not count?
OIL OIL OIL how i am tired of hearing about how bush wants oil. I remember they said the same thing about the gulf war. well, in 1991 we won a war and got the oil. So if we were after oil would we have kept it instead of giving it back to the people after the fighting was over,
Of course, you apparently have an extremely simplistic understanding of business (and, therefore, the world in general). Let see one thing that did happen after the gulf war:
Halliburton approved of the sanctions imposed on Iraq because as Dick Cheney explained, ?One major uncertainty is the potential negative impact on oil prices should Iraq reenter the market.? But at the same time, the morally amorphous company managed to work on both sides of the curtain. Detailed investigative reports by the Financial Times and the International Herald Tribune revealed that Halliburton, through two if its subsidiaries, skirted the sanctions on Iraq and did some $23.8 million in business with the ?evil? regime. The oil services company was paid to rebuild the very same Iraqi infrastructure that its CEO was complicit in destroying as defense secretary under Bush I. Interestingly, one month prior to the publication of these reports, Mr. Cheney had claimed: ?I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal.? Cheney's company did its business in Iraq through European subsidiaries ?to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardizing their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government,? (Risen 7-28-2002; Lee 11-13-2000; Bruno and Vallette 9-2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cavelli 11-19-2001)
The current strategy does involve more control over oil, a plan (official called the 'kissinger plan') that has been in the works and building support for 25 years.
BTW: you are aware that Kellog, Brown & Root, which is owned by Halliburton, has already been contracted by the US government to help with the rebuild, aren't you?
Originally posted by Harald
A bit like saying "If the Nazis hadn't murdered millions of Jews then they'd still be money-grubbing liars." Just as accurate, and just as offensive.
As far as I can tell, it was the Nazis that did the lying and the money-grubbing. Unless, you care to refute that, I really don't see where the analogy stands.
Originally posted by Harald
By the way, a "guerrilla" is someone who fights using a particular set of loose tactics. A "gorilla" is an endagered mammal with slightly more capacity for ordered thought then you.
Well, I?m glad you caught that spelling error and that me writing that at 3 am didn?t hamper your ability to understand my point.
Harrald, you still didn?t explain to us why you call yourself a Jew. Is it because the Koran refers to Moses and Abraham that you also consider yourself a Jew? Or is it because you are a bolding hooked nosed, money-grubbing liar, consider that a fitting description of a Jew, and therefore that makes you a Jew? Please answer and don't hide this time around.
Originally posted by tonton
I composed this 14 hours ago. Let's see if I can finally post...
Uh... because it's racist.
Not at all tonton.
Islam is an ideology. Just like Communism, Fascism, etc. I?m attacking that ideology, and not the color of the skin of those practicing it. Now, to you it might be politically incorrect to attack that ideology, but that?s your hang-up, not mine. The only thing remaining is whether you accept what I said is true. If you don?t, I can provide you with information elaborating on that point.
So if you say we must deal with other areas, I'll agree, but that doesn't mean you don't also have to deal with Iraq, if only to make it easier to deal with those other areas.
There seems to be an overriding academic sentiment that imperialism is bad. It hasn't been good in the last 200-300 years, but corruption flows both ways and for every imperial abuser you can find a dozen local tyrants at least as responsible for people's suffering as the so-called powers. In any event, the stakes have changed drastically in the last 50 years, especially in the last 10. We may have to live with some imperialist powers in exchange for a relatively safe world order. If you want to call such a thing imperialism, which is open to debate, but not illegimately named, so be it. I can accept that. The stakes are just too high now, it really is only a matter of time before chem/bio/nuclear weapons become available to those who know how to procure them. Ten years before Chernobyl, experts predicted such a disaster, 20 years before 9-11, industry experts warned of exactly those kinds of vulnerabilities, you wanna read what experts/analysts are saying about WOMD? Not gov't propaganda, but what gov't themselves would prefer people ignore -- fear is bad for business, you know? It isn't good.
If imperialism is the price for a greater measure of safety, then Hail Ceasar! Sign me up for one of the most benign empires one could hope for.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Well, you seem to desire proof on the battlefield. I would prefer proof be found, not provided during at battle at this point.
You missed the broad side of the barn by a mile. What I was saying is that this shows he doesn't have a big danerous arsenal. Besides I was talking about him attacking us ( if he's sooooooo dangerous ) over here. Because we're attacking him. Where's the threat?
Originally posted by giant
Funny. First you ignore colonialism and the slave trade, then you call starvation a "root cause." This is right after an insult. You're a teenager, too, right? I sure hope so.
Again,
"The Problems in Africa is interlinked to this issue. The Islamization of that continent is at the root cause of the conflicts there, the disinvestment and the starvation"
Read it carefully this time.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
As far as I can tell, it was the Nazis that did the lying and the money-grubbing. Unless, you care to refute that, I really don't see where the analogy stands.
The point is they are both racist lies. That Jews are money-grubbing and that Africans are cannibals.
(By extention you are a racist liar incidentally).
Originally posted by Matsu
I would say that Saudi Arabia is the main force behind anti-saudi sentiment in the halls of US power. They've played the US, expertly. The US always suspected that was the case, but had to make nice for numerous reasons
What are you writing?!?! Where would you ever get the idea that there is a unified attitute towards Saudi Arabia, even within the top 10 of the Bush Admin? How could you even imagine thinking it is this simple, especially considering the New Yorker article last week on Perle's dealing with Saudis through his company Trireme (he is a private citizen, you know)? Perle is the driving anti-saudi force right now, and this is the farthest thing from a secret. Last week's article shows clearly why you can't even simplify Perle's relationship (which is the most extreme) into a monochrome explanation.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Again,
"The Problems in Africa is interlinked to this issue. The Islamization of that continent is at the root cause of the conflicts there, the disinvestment and the starvation"
Read it carefully this time.
You mock me because you are a poor writer?!
So I ammend my statement. Now read it as :
Funny. You ignore colonialism and promote a narrow minded racist explanation.* This is right after an insult. You're a teenager, too, right? I sure hope so.
*Your explanation would be strongly contested by African scholars. I know. Not only does my work contain the premier Africana library in the US (thus, a few of my co-workers are doctoral students on african politics, one even very influential in the implemeting the South African elections, and I have interviewed them for various projects of my own), but both my roommate and his sister are scholars on africa. Don't underestimate the resources of the people you try to BS on the internet.
Originally posted by Harald
The point is they are both racist lies. That Jews are money-grubbing and that Africans are cannibals.
(By extention you are a racist liar incidentally).
The UN and the BBC says different.
] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2661365.stm
Originally posted by giant
You mock me because you are a poor writer?!
Firstly, I did not mock you. Secondly, although English is not my first, nor second, nor third language, grammatically that sentence should not have confused you. You are either a careless reader, or your reading comprehension skills are very lacking, or you just like putting words in other people?s mouth and carry false accusations. Also, I'm curious, what in that sentence/paragraph made you think that I said anything other than the root cause of problems in Africa is the Islamization of that continent, causing conflicts, disinvestment and starvation?
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
The UN and the BBC says different.
How unscientific. Popper and Gould would have a field day with someone like you.
BTW: on what populated continent has there not been cannibalism?
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Also, I'm curious, what in that sentence/paragraph made you think that I said anything other than the root cause of problems in Africa is the Islamization of that continent, causing conflicts, disinvestment and starvation?
This is quite incorrect.
I'll take a very few unconnected examples and offer brief explanations here. (You might have to join the dots yourself.)
Drought has caused millions of acres of agricultural land in the Horn of Africa and north Central Africa to be lost in the last two decades. (There is famine in Ethiopia and in the Southern African states of Malawi, Zambia and Lesotho today due to the failure of the rains two years ago, too.) The storms in South Eastern Africa devastated Mozambique, Swaziland and Madagascar four years ago, making millions hungry and investment difficult, since the infrastructure in the south of Mozambique had to be rebuilt. Soil erosion in South Africa and Ethopia is a big problem.
In Angola a civil war between a terrorist guerilla organisation called UNITA and the government, a sordid business to do with elected socialist governments and extra-national funding for murderers, destroyed the industry and tremendously fertile farmland of a prosperous country. Sierra Leone kinda similar.
The way Africa was divided into states dividing ethnic groups, mineral resources and agricultural land by European colonisation is responsible for the recent ethnic unrest on the Atlantic coast of Nigeria (where majority tribes find themselves governed from the capital by coteries of other ethnic groups) and the terrible violence in Central Africa of the last decade.
Nigeria has the oil to make it one of the planet's richest nations; it's poor because billions of dollars are in bank accounts in Switzerland, Germany, London and New York because of terrible corruption and inept economic policy.
Religion doesn't come in to any of these (very typical, randomly selected, examples.)
Islam, however, has been in Africa almost as long as Christianity. The library of Timbuktu, a world heritage treasure, contains ancient manuscripts (been looked after by the same family since the 1500s, I think) and the Swaheli language is practically Arabic. The Muslims and Jews of Algeria and Morrocco got on just fine (with butchers that were passed both halal and kosher, mixed bands, indistinguishable sirnames) until colonialism messed it all up after the Second World War. The 'Islamisation' of Africa was over hundreds and hundreds of years ago.
In short: corruption, weather, legacy of colonialism, ancient ethnic rivalries, you're an ignorant racist who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, etc.
Originally posted by giant
So you know an Iraqi. Does anyone here not know someone from Iraq?
As many people around the world do. Do they not count?
the fact that I know a girl from Iraq has nothing to do with the point being made nor did i make reference to the rest of the world not counting. I was talking in responce to coments which were reflecting a belief that the US would do terrible things against the people of Iraq if we went to war, My point being that the common people of iraq are in favor of US intervention and war. My friend from iraq says that their family says that if no more than half of them die it will be worth it to get rid of Saddam. Pretty much every person from iraq who i have talked to is in favor of this war even though their own family members may die. the real tragedy would be to do nothing and to allow the situation to get worse.
your point to dispute me was unrelated to the topic, "Does anyone here not know someone from Iraq?
As many people around the world do. Do they not count?" is a weak attempt to avoid a topic with an irrealevent coment which aludes to having to relate to everyone in the world or something like that.
And yes, to answer your question the many people around the world do count which includes me, and my friend.
Originally posted by giant
Of course, you apparently have an extremely simplistic understanding of business (and, therefore, the world in general). Let see one thing that did happen after the gulf war:[/B]
again you talk around the topic and somehow feel that you are making your point by making an unrelated insult. Somehow my not agreeing with you is evidence of my having an extremely simplistic understanding of business and the world in general. We were not even talking about business. Are you such a simpleton that you feal that everyone with a different opinnion than you is wrong. having to reply to a post to restate every point i have made is not a good use of my time. It was written clearly the first time. But it is my time to waste. I can only guess that you were responding to my quote
" terroririst are not these poor people that have been oppressed by the U.S.
they are the elite and the rich. most of them are highly educated. the oppressed are the poor starving people living in iraq under an evil rule."
which was in responce to a coment about how that terrorism was a result of the US oppressing a poor country givng them no choice than to lash out at us with violence.
Originally posted by giant
The current strategy does involve more control over oil, a plan (official called the 'kissinger plan') that has been in the works and building support for 25 years.
BTW: you are aware that Kellog, Brown & Root, which is owned by Halliburton, has already been contracted by the US government to help with the rebuild, aren't you? [/B]
Sigh... what I said was.. OIL OIL OIL how i am tired of hearing about how bush wants oil. I remember they said the same thing about the gulf war. well, in 1991 we won a war and got the oil. So if we were after oil wouldn't we have kept it instead of giving it back to the people after the fighting was over...
Yes of course the current plan does involve control over oil. Oil is the only resource in iraq and is the only chance the country has of becommjing a thriving society. This is not a hidden or obscure secret. in 1991 Saddam burned 700 oil wells. This is Iraq's only resource if this happens again it will be a disaster for iraq. And bush is actually trying to help the people of iraq. yes bush plans to rebuild the economy so that the country can have better schools, food, medicine, etc.
what! do you really think that when we gain control of the oil we are going to steal it from iraq?
Well i do not know everything but i do know that Saddam has proven to be worse than hitler and I know that we have been negoiating with iraq for more than 12 years and it has not done a thing. I also know that the people i know who have emidiate family members in iraq right now are in favor of the war and they thank god for bush and pray that their family comes out ok.
Originally posted by JC
Well i do not know everything but i do know that Saddam has proven to be worse than hitler
Right. Uh, run that one by me again?