by Yerusalyim 183 Replies latest social current
ThiChi, I've never called you a nane or a name. Just to clarify that...
I, also, have never made a false claim. I have argued things from my perspective. If you think I have done otherwise you're wrong.
Blood for Oil was not a campaign made by me. I merely didn't like the ever changing reasons for the Iraqi war. If the nitwits in office could've found a real reason for it and stuck to it I might have been okay with it. Might.
I'm done with this thread.
~Aztec
FBC's first of all I don't care if people argue about this. It's just that everyone has such a closed mind on the subject that no one is changing anyones minds. It just seems a waste of time.
But you continue to call Bush stupid, his supporters bastards and various other offensive names. So it appears to me that you aren't about changing minds but instead about insulting his supporters.
But that is approved of on this forum so feel free to continue the insults.
I merely didn't like the ever changing reasons for the Iraqi war.
Really? The reasons changed? Seems to me I remember hearing from the very beginning it was because of, violation of seize fire agreement, violation of UN resolutions (17 of em) possession of WMD, links to terrorism, Saddam made the region unstable, and because Saddam was a nasty guy to have as leader. Mind you...at different speeches different aspects of these reasons were emphasized...but they've all ALWAYS been there.
I merely didn't like the ever changing reasons for the Iraqi war.
Why am I continuing? Who knows.
The ever changing reasons for this war never changed once. That's simply a bush hater claim which gets played over and over here on this forum. The reasons were exactly the same as President Ball Less listed back during his administration and supported by his lovely wife Hillary, until the war actually started.
Aztec:
I never said you did....I was speaking in the broadest terms concerning posting here. I just believe that harshly criticizing the President or the US or anyone, without all the facts, calls for a responce. I can say; its not true, however I post information to back up my claim.If a claim is made, then all facts should be considered. Like the Oil for Blood claim...it just does not "add up" when you look at the dollars and cents of what we are spending..
I can go on and on about the things I "hate" about the US...War on Drugs that have lead to many of our rights being taking away....the IRS and the Tax system we have....
PS:
Also: I have changed my current viewpoints from time to time, when the facts warrant...I keep an open mind
Peace to you.....
Your friend:
HP
Stacy: I like your style; direct and to the point! Powerful points made....
Stacy : But you continue to call Bush stupid, his supporters bastards and various other offensive names. So it appears to me that you aren't about changing minds but instead about insulting his supporters.
Truly you are not the one I really feel to talk about the subject as far as I know what you think (and vice and versa)
And Stacy if you don't understand "who" I'm talking about (I guess those who didn't react know "who" I'm talking about - I guess their is a problem of assimilation with you - their must be a reason ? ... think about it ...) you should NOT read me, or REALLY read me
ThiChi, I suppose that when some people say "blood for oil" they mean it every bit that literally, and if so, I agree with you that it is unsupported by reality. But there is also very much the reality that the war has put dollars (massive dollars) directly in the pockets of oil services companies that just happen to be run by cronies of GW Bush and Dick Cheney and Condi "no one could've predicted they'd use airplanes" Rice and many others in the administration. There is also the reality that virtually all of western civilisation, first and foremost the US, lives and breaths oil to make our world go round. It is very much in Americas oil interest to have an abiding say in the country with the very largest amount of oil.
The good news is, if and when we finally change that last, and we absolutely can change it, we'll never have to question whether or not "oil" is the reason, or even part of the reason, for Americans killing and getting killed.
Damn good reason to drive a Japanese car, if you ask me
he's the worst speaker around (in the politic world).
Ditto to that, Celia -- When shrub reads the telepromter, he looks just like a DEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS. Yes, the Whitehouse imposter can't even read a script without looking like a moron!
HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT --> 2004!!!!!
Simon,
As for the USA / France / Russia arms thing:Your whole defense seems to be "other people did bad so our bad is ok". This is complete rubbish and you know it. The fact that you are pointing to Russia and France as doing things wrong means that the USA did wrong but on a bigger scale.
The USA knew what Saddam was like. They backed him regardless because they were afraid of the Iranians who had kicked out their US backed stooge and were no longer an ally.
Hey, it seems like you have an amazing knack for turning allies in to enemies doesn't it !!
I don't know what I am doing in order for you to not understand what I am asking, but I am going to try again because I believe we are both intelligent enough to get so that we are talking about the same issue. I believe the problem lies in that you believe I am trying to justify my country's actions because other countries also sold arms to Iraq, and you are probably frustrated because you believe that I think that two wrongs make a right. Am I correct so far?
Now - as I've said before (see below), I am not trying to justify anything my country did. My point in debating with you has nothing to do with justifying any one country's actions. I am trying to figure out why if America was so wrong to supply arms to Iraq when it was legal, why there is no public outcry over the French and Russians doing the same thing when it was illegal? Why is America being denounced, and not France and Russia? I believe I know the answer to this, but I want to see what your answer is first! But again, in order to move this forward, we need to have an understanding that I am not trying to justify my country's actions, or we are not going to ever get on the same page and will only be wasting one another's time. We are two pretty bright individuals, so I know we can do this! So can we set that premise before I try again?
Additionally, although it may appear as if I am trying to come up with excuses for my country's "poor behaviour", I am NOT trying to excuse my country.
Ok. I will try to lay this out in as logical of a format as I can, and will even go so far as to attempt to incorporate what I feel to be your position on the subject. I hope this will clarify my question.
True or False? America supplied arms to Iraq for their own selfish purposes.
True or False? When America supplied arms to Iraq for their own selfish purposes, Saddam had taken out his predecessor and therefore, America should have known that Saddam could use the weapons they supplied him with on his own people.
True or False? America was wrong to supply arms to Iraq.
True or False? The world is justified in their outrage that the Americans supplied arms to Iraq for their own selfish purposes.
Now, let's try this one.
True or False? France and Russia supplied arms to Iraq even though they signed a UN Resolution that prohibited any country from engaging in trade with Iraq.
True or False? When France and Russia supplied arms to Iraq even though they signed a UN Resolution that prohibited any country in engaging in trade with Iraq, Saddam had taken out his predecessor and had gassed thousands of his own people, and therefore, should have known that Saddam could use the weapons they supplied him with on his own people.
True or False? France and Russia were wrong to supply arms to Iraq.
True or False? The world is justified in their outrage that America supplied arms to Iraq for their own selfish purposes, and also justified in their silence about France and Russia supplying arms to Iraq even though they signed a UN Resolution that prohibited any country in engaging in trade with Iraq.
Now let's try this one.
True or False? The world is using the same measuring stick when comparing the actions of America with the same actions of France and Russia.
Again, I am NOT trying to justify any country providing arms to Iraq. I am trying to understand why the world is so outraged with the US, and are not equally outraged with France and Russia for doing the same thing. Could it be because it is popular to bash the US?
growedup
