<< <i>No we won't. They don't hold the untold billions of oil reserves and no-bid contracts (for Halliburton!) that Iraq held. >>
I would ask you to explain to me how the U.S. is going to profit from Iraq's oil reserves at all, let alone net of the costs of the war, or what is so sinister about Bush spending billions of dollars for the advantatge of Halliburton when neither he nor a single person he knows will profit from it, except that there are no answers to either of those questions. It would be less frustrating asking my dog to play the piano.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
"I would ask you to explain to me how the U.S. is going to profit from Iraq's oil reserves at all, let alone net of the costs of the war, or what is so sinister about Bush spending billions of dollars for the advantatge of Halliburton when neither he nor a single person he knows will profit from it, except that there are no answers to either of those questions. It would be less frustrating asking my dog to play the piano."
Its a pretty safe bet you qon't get any response from him on this or any of your other posts. He's been conveniently silent since you shot down his "arguments".
All you need to do is look at the RECORD profits the US oil companies have posted since the time of the invasion, but then I wouldn't suspect blind bushies to find comfort in the truth.
And jrmac, I'd ask you to just once contribute to this conversation, instead of being a pitchfork wielding rabble rousing troll.
<< <i>All you need to do is look at the RECORD profits the US oil companies have posted since the time of the invasion, but then I wouldn't suspect blind bushies to find comfort in the truth. >>
All I need to do is look at those profits and........ then what? Since you don't say or even hint at what your point might possibly be, I take it you think that when US companies make profits that that is inherently bad. But the question remains unanswered (as do several others as you continually abandon one argument and latch on to another), what possible reason could Bush have for starting a war whose costs will tremendously exceed all profits made by the oil companies (since the beginning of time) when neither he nor Cheney gets any of those profits? Answer if you must, but you have to know you're in way over your head here.
Anyway, on to the primary purpose of my post:
The following records were set in 2004:
Toronto set a record for home resales Maine set a record for the size of its lobster catch US property insurers posted record losses Umea airport in Sweden set a record for passenger volume MLB set a single season attendance record
CHALLENGE: You pick any one of these for me to argue was a result of the US invasion of Iraq, and you get to argue that the "RECORD profits of US oil companies" are a result of the invasion and then we both get to rebut the other's argument. I GUARANTEE you that I will beat you in that debate. Because (1) none of the above, including the record profits, had anything to do with the US invasion, and (2) you are an idiot of galactic proportion.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
dallas I am not going to sit here and 'debate' you as it's obvious your stance is that Bush was justified in going to Iraq, and no amount of data to prove otherwise would do. You are the typical 'bush is RIGHT!' that cannot listen to facts, and cannot possibly understand that the overwhelming evidence shows Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda and therefore wasn't involved in 9/11.
Too bad...you typically post intelligent, well thought out posts too, but on this one you're dead wrong.
<< <i>All you need to do is look at the RECORD profits the US oil companies have posted since the time of the invasion, but then I wouldn't suspect blind bushies to find comfort in the truth. >>
Uh-huh. Had nothing to do with increased demand from China, India, and the rest of Asia, as well as the gas guzzling SUVs all of America loves. The Norwegians are making record oil profits as well, so I'm sure Bush plotted all of this in cahoots with Norway!!
Did you feel sorry for the oil companies when prices crashed in the mid-80s? Of course not, you enjoyed your 80 cents per gallon gas, while the US oil companies downsized, and we imported more cheap foreign oil. Well, its payback time for the ones that weathered the storm and took the risk of staying in business.
In typical Axtell fashion he'll just tell you you're wrong. He won't lay out any facts or refute any of the arguments you posted. Much like he does with all his arguments he'll just try and bully you. Now he's take the JoeStalin approach and will bury his head in the sand and decide its not worth getting into or I'm not going to debate you. Its funny he's mocking you for laying out your arguments but he can't seem to put a coherent thought together on this one.
For someone that decided not respond it didn't take long for you to respond.
And I prefer torch carrying rabble rousing troll. I don't own a pitch fork.
<< <i>dallas I am not going to sit here and 'debate' you as it's obvious your stance is that Bush was justified in going to Iraq, and no amount of data to prove otherwise would do. You are the typical 'bush is RIGHT!' that cannot listen to facts, and cannot possibly understand that the overwhelming evidence shows Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda and therefore wasn't involved in 9/11.
Too bad...you typically post intelligent, well thought out posts too, but on this one you're dead wrong. >>
Let's take this point by point and then I'll call this a day (unless you take it upon yourself to incorrectly characterize what I think yet again):
1. Yes, I think that Bush was justified in going into Iraq, for the reasons that he gave (not the ones you desperately want to believe that he gave) and because he had the overwhelming support of the Congress (on both sides of the aisle)....
2. .... but it's a close call and I am of an open mind on the issue. I will freely admit that there may be arguments or data that would change my mind. You, however, have offered nothing besides years-old discredited theories and ad hominem attacks.
3. If you had picked up at all on the political philosophy that obviously informs my opinions, you would realize that I am far from a fan of Bush. I have to remind myself almost every day that he is better than the guy he beat.
4. I'm not sure how else to phrase it to make you understand: I KNOW that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Since that wasn't one of the reasons given by Bush for the invasion, though, I can't imagine why you keep bringing it up.
5. If you think I'm wrong, explain why YOU think I'm wrong, not why Michael Moore thinks I'm wrong.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
dallas, why don't you tell me why you think we went to war? I'll tell you the reasons Bush and his administration stated.
The war in afghanistan was rolling along smoothly...al qaeda cells were being rooted out, and we had the full efforts of our armed forces working in very hostile, very rugged terrain that is unlike few other places on earth (what with the massive cave systems they were using as hideouts). Osama is sending out videos from different locations each time, showing our boys have them on the run.
Suddenly, Iraq is mentioned as a link to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This link was never proved (and has never been proved), but Bush and Co. pushed ahead with their agenda, stating that Iraq is supporting al qaeda (wrong) and that they had this huge stockpile of WMDs that could reach american shores! (again, another patent falsehood). Bush REPEATEDLY stated that Saddam Hussein assisted in the 9/11 attacks. I am sorry your memory of this is so fuzzy, but it's the truth. I don't need loudmouths like Michael Moore to tell me my facts (though I admit anyone who gets people involved in the political process is a good thing).
It's dated September 6th, 2003...and is the result of a survey in which nearly 70% of Americans believed (at the time) that Saddam had a link to the 9/11 attacks. It then goes on to say:
"President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however."
That's not good enough for you I suppose? Perhaps words from the president himself will make you a believer:
" I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
Well we divert our attention from what should be our primary target to Iraq. Bush seized the opportunity of 9/11 to invade Iraq...he used fear tactics to scare the american people in believing that somehow, someway that Saddam Hussein was involved in the plot (a plan so effective people to this day believe it to be true). His republican controlled send and house easily pass the initiative, against seemingly every other nation on earth not named the united kingdom. Wheras the previous gulf incursion was a truly worldwide effort, the USA gets stuck with a vast majority of troop support and financially supporting this 'war'. NATO calls the invasion a blatant disregard for protocol, as Saddam was allowing UN inspectors full access to show his arsenal had been dismantled.
Then, when it becomes apparent that there are NO WMDs to speak of, Bush and Co. grudgingly admit there never were any, and then claim the reason for the invasion was to liberate the people of Iraq. Uhm ok? If that was the real cause, (a) why wasn't that announced at the beginning of the whole shebang, and (b) where is Bush's outcry for the people of north korea? China? saudi arabi? All countries with far worse records of human rights abuse? What about the people of the numerous African countries undergoing genocide at the hands of ruthless tyrants? Where is Bush's outrage for them?
Simple. There is none, because there is no economic upside for having a US presence there.
I am not sure how much clearer I can be in presenting my belief that Bush claimed a direct link between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11 were the reason for us invading Iraq. He points it out clearly his linking the two.
P.S. to whoever said that he is better than the other guy, how do we know that? I wasn't excited about either candidate, but Kerry might have been a better choice. We will never know.
JoeBanzai
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
<< <i>No we won't. They don't hold the untold billions of oil reserves and no-bid contracts (for Halliburton!) that Iraq held. >>
I would ask you to explain to me how the U.S. is going to profit from Iraq's oil reserves at all, let alone net of the costs of the war, or what is so sinister about Bush spending billions of dollars for the advantatge of Halliburton when neither he nor a single person he knows will profit from it, except that there are no answers to either of those questions. It would be less frustrating asking my dog to play the piano.
Its a pretty safe bet you qon't get any response from him on this or any of your other posts. He's been conveniently silent since you shot down his "arguments".
And jrmac, I'd ask you to just once contribute to this conversation, instead of being a pitchfork wielding rabble rousing troll.
<< <i>All you need to do is look at the RECORD profits the US oil companies have posted since the time of the invasion, but then I wouldn't suspect blind bushies to find comfort in the truth.
>>
All I need to do is look at those profits and........ then what? Since you don't say or even hint at what your point might possibly be, I take it you think that when US companies make profits that that is inherently bad. But the question remains unanswered (as do several others as you continually abandon one argument and latch on to another), what possible reason could Bush have for starting a war whose costs will tremendously exceed all profits made by the oil companies (since the beginning of time) when neither he nor Cheney gets any of those profits? Answer if you must, but you have to know you're in way over your head here.
Anyway, on to the primary purpose of my post:
The following records were set in 2004:
Toronto set a record for home resales
Maine set a record for the size of its lobster catch
US property insurers posted record losses
Umea airport in Sweden set a record for passenger volume
MLB set a single season attendance record
CHALLENGE: You pick any one of these for me to argue was a result of the US invasion of Iraq, and you get to argue that the "RECORD profits of US oil companies" are a result of the invasion and then we both get to rebut the other's argument. I GUARANTEE you that I will beat you in that debate. Because (1) none of the above, including the record profits, had anything to do with the US invasion, and (2) you are an idiot of galactic proportion.
Too bad...you typically post intelligent, well thought out posts too, but on this one you're dead wrong.
<< <i>All you need to do is look at the RECORD profits the US oil companies have posted since the time of the invasion, but then I wouldn't suspect blind bushies to find comfort in the truth.
>>
Uh-huh. Had nothing to do with increased demand from China, India, and the rest of Asia, as well as the gas guzzling SUVs all of America loves. The Norwegians are making record oil profits as well, so I'm sure Bush plotted all of this in cahoots with Norway!!
Did you feel sorry for the oil companies when prices crashed in the mid-80s? Of course not, you enjoyed your 80 cents per gallon gas, while the US oil companies downsized, and we imported more cheap foreign oil. Well, its payback time for the ones that weathered the storm and took the risk of staying in business.
In typical Axtell fashion he'll just tell you you're wrong. He won't lay out any facts or refute any of the arguments you posted. Much like he does with all his arguments he'll just try and bully you. Now he's take the JoeStalin approach and will bury his head in the sand and decide its not worth getting into or I'm not going to debate you. Its funny he's mocking you for laying out your arguments but he can't seem to put a coherent thought together on this one.
For someone that decided not respond it didn't take long for you to respond.
And I prefer torch carrying rabble rousing troll. I don't own a pitch fork.
No
<< <i>dallas I am not going to sit here and 'debate' you as it's obvious your stance is that Bush was justified in going to Iraq, and no amount of data to prove otherwise would do. You are the typical 'bush is RIGHT!' that cannot listen to facts, and cannot possibly understand that the overwhelming evidence shows Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda and therefore wasn't involved in 9/11.
Too bad...you typically post intelligent, well thought out posts too, but on this one you're dead wrong. >>
Let's take this point by point and then I'll call this a day (unless you take it upon yourself to incorrectly characterize what I think yet again):
1. Yes, I think that Bush was justified in going into Iraq, for the reasons that he gave (not the ones you desperately want to believe that he gave) and because he had the overwhelming support of the Congress (on both sides of the aisle)....
2. .... but it's a close call and I am of an open mind on the issue. I will freely admit that there may be arguments or data that would change my mind. You, however, have offered nothing besides years-old discredited theories and ad hominem attacks.
3. If you had picked up at all on the political philosophy that obviously informs my opinions, you would realize that I am far from a fan of Bush. I have to remind myself almost every day that he is better than the guy he beat.
4. I'm not sure how else to phrase it to make you understand: I KNOW that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Since that wasn't one of the reasons given by Bush for the invasion, though, I can't imagine why you keep bringing it up.
5. If you think I'm wrong, explain why YOU think I'm wrong, not why Michael Moore thinks I'm wrong.
The war in afghanistan was rolling along smoothly...al qaeda cells were being rooted out, and we had the full efforts of our armed forces working in very hostile, very rugged terrain that is unlike few other places on earth (what with the massive cave systems they were using as hideouts). Osama is sending out videos from different locations each time, showing our boys have them on the run.
Suddenly, Iraq is mentioned as a link to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This link was never proved (and has never been proved), but Bush and Co. pushed ahead with their agenda, stating that Iraq is supporting al qaeda (wrong) and that they had this huge stockpile of WMDs that could reach american shores! (again, another patent falsehood).
Bush REPEATEDLY stated that Saddam Hussein assisted in the 9/11 attacks. I am sorry your memory of this is so fuzzy, but it's the truth. I don't need loudmouths like Michael Moore to tell me my facts (though I admit anyone who gets people involved in the political process is a good thing).
Think I am getting my facts wrong? Here:
USA Today Article
It's dated September 6th, 2003...and is the result of a survey in which nearly 70% of Americans believed (at the time) that Saddam had a link to the 9/11 attacks. It then goes on to say:
"President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however."
That's not good enough for you I suppose? Perhaps words from the president himself will make you a believer:
" I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
From the whitehouse.gov site: Link
Well we divert our attention from what should be our primary target to Iraq. Bush seized the opportunity of 9/11 to invade Iraq...he used fear tactics to scare the american people in believing that somehow, someway that Saddam Hussein was involved in the plot (a plan so effective people to this day believe it to be true). His republican controlled send and house easily pass the initiative, against seemingly every other nation on earth not named the united kingdom. Wheras the previous gulf incursion was a truly worldwide effort, the USA gets stuck with a vast majority of troop support and financially supporting this 'war'. NATO calls the invasion a blatant disregard for protocol, as Saddam was allowing UN inspectors full access to show his arsenal had been dismantled.
Then, when it becomes apparent that there are NO WMDs to speak of, Bush and Co. grudgingly admit there never were any, and then claim the reason for the invasion was to liberate the people of Iraq. Uhm ok? If that was the real cause, (a) why wasn't that announced at the beginning of the whole shebang, and (b) where is Bush's outcry for the people of north korea? China? saudi arabi? All countries with far worse records of human rights abuse? What about the people of the numerous African countries undergoing genocide at the hands of ruthless tyrants? Where is Bush's outrage for them?
Simple. There is none, because there is no economic upside for having a US presence there.
I am not sure how much clearer I can be in presenting my belief that Bush claimed a direct link between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11 were the reason for us invading Iraq. He points it out clearly his linking the two.
P.S. to whoever said that he is better than the other guy, how do we know that? I wasn't excited about either candidate, but Kerry might have been a better choice. We will never know.
JoeBanzai
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't think George Bush will win a third term. >>
Hell he probably won't even run in the primaries. >>
Are either of these comments serious? I have to wonder now . . . . . . . >>
Of course the comments are not serious but you are welcome to wonder as needed.
Or are you still scrambling to refute this?