Barrack and Hillary

[David Jamieson]

So you admit the 1991 war not a 'war for oil', correct?

But the liberals were touting that then too. Hell, Ted Kennedy got up on the Senate floor and said 10,000 body bags were on order for our servicemen and it was all for oil.

Actually, '91 was sanctioned by the UN and was a legitimate war in the views of the world and that's why there was actually a coalition, a short conflict, a withdrawal by Saddam and subsequent UN sanctions and embargoes placed against Iraq.

Gulf war 1 was legit. This current occupation is still not legit to the world and if it was, there would be more participation in Iraq from the world as opposed to more and more nations withdrawing.

There is zero comparison here. they truly are apples and oranges.

Oil is a necessity in our society, and yet, unlike other necessities it remains unregulated. This is a question worth asking as to why that is? Why would any utility company be allowed to hold you by the cajones and charge you an ever fluctuating unregulated high profit? They're not, but oil and petrol outfits are. Not to mention, they get unreasonably large tax breaks and so on.

If society wasn't 100% dependent on oil, then I could see it not being a regulated thing. But everything in our society depends on oil therefore we should not let corporate helmsman hold civilization to the grill for a few dollars more. plain and simple the people and their government should control and distribute the energy resources of the nation or that is imported or exported from said nation.

[1bad65]

There is zero comparison here. they truly are apples and oranges.

But there is some comparison. Saddam broke the terms he signed ending the 1991 war. You have to see that.

Notice the UN did not condemn the 2003 invasion. Had it been a 'war for oil' they sure would have.

[Black Jack II]

President Hussein was a more effective president than President Bush!

You sir, are a total R-Tard. With statements like this and your other drivel I have to take the chance and guess that your parents sniffed massive amounts of paint.

[DPL]

So, I received my first blind forwarded email today implying Obama is the anti-christ. Left me sort of speechless.

Wouldn't it be embarrassing to vote for him only to find out he really is the anti-christ? How do you explain that one at the pearly gates? Is that a one-way ticket to hell?

[Shaolin Wookie]

So you admit the 1991 war not a 'war for oil', correct?

But the liberals were touting that then too. Hell, Ted Kennedy got up on the Senate floor and said 10,000 body bags were on order for our servicemen and it was all for oil.

LOL.....it's a war about oil, but not necessarily FOR oil, as you say.

Why did we go? Well, we get oil from Saudi Arabia/Kuwait.....and an invasion from Iraq threatens our oil supply. So, if we go kick Saddam's ass, who do you think is going to be most grateful? Um.....Saudi's perhaps? We didn't go over there for a war against terror, did we? WAs it the WMD's? Maybe Al Qaida? No, wait, it was for Iraqi Freedom and the cause of a Democratic Middle East!! Woohoo!

Are you really gaoing to get hung up on particles and turn this into a semantic debate. Why anyone thinks playing the intellectual possum formulates a good argument in his favor, I will never understand.

[Shaolin Wookie]

You sir, are a total R-Tard. With statements like this and your other drivel I have to take the chance and guess that your parents sniffed massive amounts of paint.

LOL...it's hyperbole, and I was being sarcastic, or are you just that dull? Stick me in a room with two conservative, somewhat racist spin-eaters, be it physical or hyperspatial, and I'll take 10 steps to the left. I can only hope you're doing the same to the right.....or else you're a complete nincompoop and need to take your Rush-Limbaugh-approved prozac.

[David Jamieson]

But there is some comparison. Saddam broke the terms he signed ending the 1991 war. You have to see that.

Notice the UN did not condemn the 2003 invasion. Had it been a 'war for oil' they sure would have.

The terms he broke did not justify the unilateral declaration of war, the subsequent occupation and execution of Saddam conveniently before he was even finished with court proceedings against him.

so, it doesn't matter if I see it or not. It doesn't justify what happened or what's happening.

the occupation of Iraq is still not sanctioned and it is still viewed as an illegal action by much of the world community and you don't see any countries rushing to help the US out or to make it right in the UN because it can't be done.

[1bad65]

LOL.....it's a war about oil, but not necessarily FOR oil, as you say.

It's your buddies who call it a 'war FOR oil'. I'm just quoting them.

Why did we go?

We went because we had a treaty with Kuwait to come to their aid if attacked. Is this news to you?

You ought to try providing proof for your ridiculous assertions.

Are you really gaoing to get hung up on particles....

Yeah, that proof stuff is a real b1tch ain't it?

[Shaolin Wookie]

It's your buddies who call it a 'war FOR oil'. I'm just quoting them.

LOL....for and about are interchangeable as particles in English. So, if you're making a statement meant to have some kind of impact, you choose FOR. It's hyperbole man.....it's not necessarily literal. It's civic rhetoric at its best/worse. Get over it....LOL....

We went because we had a treaty with Kuwait to come to their aid if attacked. Is this news to you?

Why did we have a treaty? Because we thought the women were hot in their full-body birkas and the Saudi's are such nice people?

For oil, dipshit. We had a contract, sure, but why? Don't play the idiot. It doesn't suit you.....er.......nevermind.

You ought to try providing proof for your ridiculous assertions.

The middle east has oil, and fuck-all else. Point proven.

You see A and C, but fail to draw the connection in B. Where did you get your debating skills....Pat Robertson's law school? *scoff!*

Yeah, that proof stuff is a real b1tch ain't it?

I'll take the feminist position on this one, and say it's a real male chauvanist pig.

[Shaolin Wookie]

But there is some comparison. Saddam broke the terms he signed ending the 1991 war. You have to see that.

Notice the UN did not condemn the 2003 invasion. Had it been a 'war for oil' they sure would have.

Why did Saddam enter into Kuwait? Refresh my memory.

Did they have the WMD's that Saddam wanted to get his hands on?

[1bad65]

The terms he broke did not justify the unilateral declaration of war, the subsequent occupation and execution of Saddam conveniently before he was even finished with court proceedings against him.

Yes it did justify the war. Even the UN was begging Saddam to let the inspectors back in as they knew Bush (unlike Clinton) meant business and would make him abide by the 1991 terms even if it meant war. Saddam was tried in an Iraqi court, not in a US court. Our troops are still there and the Iraqi government wants them there.

It doesn't justify what happened or what's happening.

According to the UN, it indeed does. And again, we are not the only country with troops over there. Even countries who sent no troops are sending monetary aid and supplies. This is not a US-only operation, no matter what the anti-war people say.

the occupation of Iraq is still not sanctioned and it is still viewed as an illegal action by much of the world community and you don't see any countries rushing to help the US out or to make it right in the UN because it can't be done.

Again, it is sanctioned according to the UN. Who cares which countries say it's an illegal operation, the UN justified it. Which countries say it illegal? Let me guess; Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, does that sound right?

And again, there are other countries providing aid, money, and troops.

[1bad65]

Why did Saddam enter into Kuwait? Refresh my memory.

Wow. The guy who can't answer a question is asking them of others.

Unlike you, I'll answer. Please try it sometime.

Saddam always claimed Kuwait was a province of Iraq's. Also, he indeed wanted to get their oil to pay for the costs of the Iran-Iraq war, ANOTHER war Saddam started.

[1bad65]

Did they have the WMD's that Saddam wanted to get his hands on?

No, he already had his own. Remember how he gassed over 5000 Kurds at Halabja in 1988?

[Shaolin Wookie]

Wow. The guy who can't answer a question is asking them of others.

Unlike you, I'll answer. Please try it sometime.

Saddam always claimed Kuwait was a province of Iraq's. Also, he indeed wanted to get their oil to pay for the costs of the Iran-Iraq war, ANOTHER war Saddam started.

I answer all your questions, even the ones you pose to question-dodgers.

Posing rhetorical questions in the Socratic method is a point of answering your own.

So, by these criterion, Saddam wanted to get their oil to pay for a war, oil we had interests in, and therefore formed a protection-order for in the term of a treaty. Saddam claimed Kuwait was a province of Iraq, and why? For the oil--so, um.....

At what point do you admit you are unable to draw logical conclusions? Why am I debating a stone wall unable to reason cogently? Do you need a piece of paper and a congressional hearing to tell you that smoking causes cancer?

All the wars in the middle east are about oil, for oil, however you want to parse it.

[Shaolin Wookie]

No, he already had his own. Remember how he gassed over 5000 Kurds at Halabja in 1988?

Remember how we didn't invade to save the Kurds? Why? They didn't control the oil.

I'm not big on death penalties, but if Saddam deserved the sentence for anything, it was Halabja. But it has nothing to do with the current Iraq War or the argument about oil--and only weakens your defense, as we did nothing to stop Saddam in the act, and it was culture-cleansing, not oil procuration, and only censured him ex post facto.....by about twenty years, nonetheless. LOL.....