TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Libya Situation
Pages (30): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 »

I like how cunning they were by setting up their evil scheme a decade before the war!

quote:

The Honorable William J. Clinton President of the United States Washington, DC Dear Mr. President: We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein�s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of �containment� of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq�s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam�s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world�s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk. Sincerely,

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 God that stare just burns a hole through me. I bet The17sss just made a mess on his keyboard.

Hey, she's kind of sexy.








I mean if you're into that whole spliced gene thing between a human being, a raptor and a snapping turtle and want to know your progeny will be secure enough to provide her sustenance when she kills you after mating.

I guess she's kind of sexy in that I want to be slamming her head against the headboard with a belt around her neck kind of way.

I can't stand Ann Coulter.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I can't stand Ann Coulter.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I can't stand Ann Coulter.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Just thought it was interesting that this showed up when I opened the thread, just now. At least it didn't yell at me.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN

for real. she doesn't do anything productive... she just lobs overly incendiary grenades with the sole purpose of getting outrageously outrageous reactions. she should go back to being a lawyer and keep her trap shut; she's not doing the Republicans any favors.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss for real. she doesn't do anything productive... she just lobs overly incendiary grenades with the sole purpose of getting outrageously outrageous reactions. she should go back to being a lawyer and keep her trap shut; she's not doing the Republicans any favors.

So, you�re like the ann coulter of TA?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN

You're one of the strangest people I've ever conversed with on this subject. I've never had anyone agree with me in such a subversive manner, yet vehemently deny we're talking about the same thing.

Let me give it to you simply. This is what you beleive:

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I think that the US went to war due to the neo-conservatives dominating the republican party, who had long held desires to remove saddam from power, reduce the US� dependence on hostile oil and create a democratic nation more suitable for US interests in the region.

I can only assume at this point you're utterly naive. The only part that is true is that they had long held desires to remove Saddam, but again they were financial.

You really think Bush/Cheyney/Neocons care about "spreading democracy". Give me a fucking break. It's not very well hidden code for removing people they don't like with military force so they can make more money once they are out of the way.

Sorry if it's too simplistic for you but sadly that is what it comes down to. Billions have been made from Defense contracts handed out to his cronies, including his VP, and that doesn't even mention oil (which I'll get to). I agree it's it's complex in organisation and logistics, but extremely simply when distilled down to the essence, or fundamental reason for going to war.

Again, "reducing dependence on Hostile oil?". You've backtracked on that since so I won't say anymore but they're not a green party and have a stern track record on derailing the progress alternative energy sources. Ask yourself why; Because of their interests in Oil as a commodity i.e it's monetary value to them and their supporters.

You have to be able to see past that language.

I'm starting to think, you're either truly shit at getting your point across or you don't know what you're trying to say yourself. I do and it's simple. This war was about financial interests and there's too much of a paper trail and too much proof to believe anything else.

As for the oil, go back to that article I posted. If you can't be bothered, the look up the Carlyle group, which Bush Sn was forced to resign as Chairman from in 2003 due to criticism of war profiteering. he still gets paid huge consultancy fees, and is a major shareholder (all public record). Carlyle group was also a massive contributor to all Bush campaigns.

Here is Carlyle groups webpage listing in many of their companies, their expertise in "Oil and gas exploration and development in the middeleast" not to mention funds and infrastructure.

http://www.carlyle.com/fund/buyout/...i/item9177.html

Now go a few pages back and look at your responses. Your entire language and tone is nothing but defensive of the Republicans with special emphasis for their "reasons" for going to war. When I challenge it, you start giving excuses such PNAC and Neocons, which are nothing but distractions from the primary point that this war was about financial interests for the Bush Adminstrations and fuck all to do with those key words like "democracy" and "dependence on hostile oil".

Also, please read this:

http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

Some great info, not just about oil but a preconceived plan to invade that had nothing to do with reacting to humanitarian issues or democracy.

Finally and most damningly, read this, especially the bit about how Exxon mobil (yes, Exxon) has magically won the contracts for the HUGE future expansion or Iraq's oil output.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...3055705494.html


Still think I don't get the "nuances"?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I'm starting to think, you're either truly shit at getting your point across or you don't know what you're trying to say yourself. I do and it's simple. This war was about financial interests and there's too much of a paper trail and too much proof to believe anything else.

You may understand what you're trying to say, but you're also wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Still think I don't get the "nuances"?

It's pretty damn obvious you don't have any clue what you're talking about as you're just spouting a bunch of CT shit and throwing logic away completely.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I can only assume at this point you're utterly naive. The only part that is true is that they had long held desires to remove Saddam, but again they were financial.

Yeah, the guy who thinks large scale invasions involve more than the whims of 2 men is the na�ve one, lol!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN You really think Bush/Cheyney/Neocons care about "spreading democracy". Give me a fucking break. It's not very well hidden code for removing people they don't like with military force so they can make more money once they are out of the way.

That was the standard neocon assertion, that they could destroy dictators and build nations in line with US strategic interests (the mid east/oil etc).

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Sorry if it's too simplistic for you but sadly that is what it comes down to. Billions have been made from Defense contracts handed out to his cronies, including his VP, and that doesn't even mention oil (which I'll get to). I agree it's it's complex in organisation and logistics, but extremely simply when distilled down to the essence, or fundamental reason for going to war.

Repeating the same unfounded assertions doesn�t make them any less unfounded.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Again, "reducing dependence on Hostile oil?". You've backtracked on that since so I won't say anymore but they're not a green party and have a stern track record on derailing the progress alternative energy sources. Ask yourself why; Because of their interests in Oil as a commodity i.e it's monetary value to them and their supporters.

I didn�t backtrack, I pointed out this wasn�t the primary reason, but was part of it.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I'm starting to think, you're either truly shit at getting your point across or you don't know what you're trying to say yourself. I do and it's simple. This war was about financial interests and there's too much of a paper trail and too much proof to believe anything else.

You�re right, I lose patience with imbeciles whose understandings of complex political issues boils down to childish conspiracy nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN As for the oil, go back to that article I posted. If you can't be bothered, the look up the Carlyle group, which Bush Sn was forced to resign as Chairman from in 2003 due to criticism of war profiteering. he still gets paid huge consultancy fees, and is a major shareholder (all public record). Carlyle group was also a massive contributor to all Bush campaigns.

The article you posted wasn�t about oil. You told me to follow the links, and I asked you to quote the relevant information, since I�m at work. I don�t deny the profiteering re contracts to defend/rebuild, the cronyism was strong with them. What I am disputing is that the invasion was about claiming Iraqi oil (by either the US or Bush�s personal theft team) and the contracts were the reason the US went to war. There is a wealth of supporting evidence for this, which you just hand-wave away in favour of your immature little notions.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Here is Carlyle groups webpage listing in many of their companies, their expertise in "Oil and gas exploration and development in the middeleast" not to mention funds and infrastructure. http://www.carlyle.com/fund/buyout/...i/item9177.html

Gee thanks. I�ll let all the russian and chinese oil companies know they�ve got competition for all the contracts they�ve already won!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Now go a few pages back and look at your responses. Your entire language and tone is nothing but defensive of the Republicans with special emphasis for their "reasons" for going to war. When I challenge it, you start giving excuses such PNAC and Neocons, which are nothing but distractions from the primary point that this war was about financial interests for the Bush Adminstrations and fuck all to do with those key words like "democracy" and "dependence on hostile oil".

Go back a few pages and you�ll see I am an abusive cunt who can�t stand fools and their idiotic opinions in subjects that are apparently far beyond them. I don�t give a shit about the GOP (as any TA here can attest to). all I care about is accuracy, and your revisionism isn�t only wrong, it�s completely retarded.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Also, please read this: http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

All of that is completely contradicted by chinese and Russian domination in oil contracts in post war Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Some great info, not just about oil but a preconceived plan to invade that had nothing to do with reacting to humanitarian issues or democracy.

Yes, a pre-conceived plan by the neocons who wanted to smash Iraq since the first gulf war (see letter to clinton I posted already). This isn�t news, many people in the US had long desired to take out saddam.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Finally and most damningly, read this, especially the bit about how Exxon mobil (yes, Exxon) has magically won the contracts for the HUGE future expansion or Iraq's oil output. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...3055705494.html

Well its good to see the US finally won one. I suppose obama owns Exxon?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Still think I don't get the "nuances"?

As far as identifying the gears and machinations behind the war, then no, your viewpoint is one-dimensional and immature.

Why are we attacking RANN? Even if he is stupid, he is attacking Kevin, so he is on the good side, even if his logic is flawed.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews You may understand what you're trying to say, but you're also wrong. It's pretty damn obvious you don't have any clue what you're talking about as you're just spouting a bunch of CT shit and throwing logic away completely.

You're entitled to your opinion and so am I.

I've backed up my reasoning and even included what I consider valid sources.

I couldn't give a shit if you want to chime in every couple of pages just to drop this kind of limited "insight"

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Why are we attacking RANN? Even if he is stupid, he is attacking Kevin, so he is on the good side, even if his logic is flawed.

Because Kevin might be a wingnut, but he�s our wingnut. And other than his rejection of AGW, I haven�t seen him spout stuff that�s as ludicrous as rann�s nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Because Kevin might be a wingnut, but he�s our wingnut. And other than his rejection of AGW, I haven�t seen him spout stuff that�s as ludicrous as rann�s nonsense.

Yea, but CT, while annoying, are rather harmless because both sides take them as fools, but I'd rather have those fools attacking something with real danger like conservatives and republicans.

Deal with the CT after.

Remember: By any means available.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby something with real danger like conservatives and republicans.

the danger is palpable. the suicide bombings must be stopped.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss the danger is palpable. the suicide bombings must be stopped.

If there is cancer in the body, do you wait for it to spread or nip it in the bud before its too late?

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby If there is cancer in the body, do you wait for it to spread or nip it in the bud before its too late?

the only cancer spreading like wildfire is the current government leviathan.

Haha you guys crack me up. You should seriously consider a video-taped boxing match between you two.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss for real. she doesn't do anything productive... she just lobs overly incendiary grenades with the sole purpose of getting outrageously outrageous reactions. she should go back to being a lawyer and keep her trap shut; she's not doing the Republicans any favors.

Kev can't stand many of the right-wing pundits I can't stand, and for all the right reasons, too.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Kev can't stand many of the right-wing pundits I can't stand, and for all the right reasons, too.

Truth. So many of them are just awful to listen to and don't help the situation.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Truth. So many of them are just awful to listen to and don't help the situation.

The Democratic Caucus isn't exactly helping matters, either. Did you see Jon Stewart, last night?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, the guy who thinks large scale invasions involve more than the whims of 2 men is the na�ve one, lol!

never said that did? (otherwise post it up, bullshitter). They sure as shit lead the charge and made it official though, and you can't deny it.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN That was the standard neocon assertion, that they could destroy dictators and build nations in line with US strategic interests (the mid east/oil etc).

No, it was in your statement:

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I think that the US went to war due to the neo-conservatives dominating the republican party, who had long held desires to remove saddam from power, reduce the US� dependence on hostile oil and create a democratic nation more suitable for US interests in the region.

But you've decided to alter your language now.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Repeating the same unfounded assertions doesn�t make them any less unfounded.

That would be true had I not posted all the links you can read for yourself "if you weren't at work". Outside of that one link I've given you two others in this thread that you keep not wanting to reference.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I didn�t backtrack, I pointed out this wasn�t the primary reason, but was part of it. But at first you said you didn't agree with me at all, and that I'm an idoit. So you do agree with me. partly. Right. Glad we cleared that up. [QUOTE]Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN You�re right, I lose patience with imbeciles whose understandings of complex political issues boils down to childish conspiracy nonsense.

Making money from invading other countries isn't that complex I'm afraid. I'm honestly sorry you can't grasp at least the motivation simplicity. Of course, I could go in to every little mechanism of these "complex political issues", like the money made by lobbyists in Michigan who wanted the contracts for the jet engines that would be ordered due to the need to increase defense spending, or private security contrator hiring at firms like blackwater, or the massive increase in arms exports for Britain, but let's face it - IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO MONEY.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN The article you posted wasn�t about oil. You told me to follow the links, and I asked you to quote the relevant information, since I�m at work. I don�t deny the profiteering re contracts to defend/rebuild, the cronyism was strong with them. What I am disputing is that the invasion was about claiming Iraqi oil (by either the US or Bush�s personal theft team) and the contracts were the reason the US went to war. There is a wealth of supporting evidence for this, which you just hand-wave away in favour of your immature little notions.

Oil and Defense go hand in hand on this one and they were in it for spoils of both, hard. I've posted links, including one from the WSJ dated just a week ago showing US oil companies are about to profit ridiculously hard as a direct result of the war.

But fine, you still want more proof and I'll spoon it you to get it in to your thick head. Here's a list of contractors in Iraq. Click on a few of them and you'll see many of them provide "oil and gas consulting" or "Energy infrastructure".
http://projects.publicintegrity.org...?act=pro&fil=IQ

Don't forget to look at the Carlyle group page I linked though. That's a biggie right there with a DIRECT link to Bush family income.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Gee thanks. I�ll let all the russian and chinese oil companies know they�ve got competition for all the contracts they�ve already won!

Dude, you've tried that three times and it didn't work then so stop hanging on to it. The pot just got shared around, as was the intention as there is more than enough. See above and previous links. The could not ever commandeer all the oil in Iraq if they wanted to.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Go back a few pages and you�ll see I am an abusive cunt who can�t stand fools and their idiotic opinions in subjects that are apparently far beyond them. I don�t give a shit about the GOP (as any TA here can attest to). all I care about is accuracy, and your revisionism isn�t only wrong, it�s completely retarded.

It's my opinion. Don't fucking tell me yours is gospel and mine is wrong, especially when you've given me nothing to prove otherwise yet I've posted a bunch of links supporting my assertions. in other words, I could give less of a fuck what you think, because you I've done my homework.

It's just like science; it happens whether you believe in it or not.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN All of that is completely contradicted by chinese and Russian domination in oil contracts in post war Iraq.

See above. And again, it's not just about the Oil itself. it's all the infrastructure that goes with oil, much of which is provided by companies like the Carlyle group and Haliburton. They also make money off those chinese and russian contracts for providing expertise, security, transport etc.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yes, a pre-conceived plan by the neocons who wanted to smash Iraq since the first gulf war (see letter to clinton I posted already). This isn�t news, many people in the US had long desired to take out saddam.

But that was not what was presented either by them or by you at first and what i've been saying ALL ALONG so WHY THE FUCK are you fighting so hard to disagree with me?

You just want to try to make some petty diferentiation between the republican party at that time and it's overwhelming majority of Neocons (hint, the key is in the word majority).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Well its good to see the US finally won one. I suppose obama owns Exxon?

Wow.

Just wow. I just take that as another late in the day concession as you can't refute it now.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN As far as identifying the gears and machinations behind the war, then no, your viewpoint is one-dimensional and immature.

no, it's just ultimate driving force. I don't care to get in to semantics where the root is one common denominator (oil and defense money for a small number of individual who have a vested interest in increasing government spending for specific tasks). Hint: vastly expanded annual defense spending, massive increase defense lobbying spending, Oil company profits.

But no, must just be timely co-incidence. Of course. You're right.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.