|
Libya Situation (pg. 45)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
This coming from the guy who tried to argue last week that bringing back electric trains from 100 years ago as an alternative to people driving their own cars would be well received across the Pacific Northwest. :stongue: |
How the does that relate to anything in my quoted post? |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
How the does that relate to anything in my quoted post? |
Don't worry, he's just falling back on "ad-homen" attacks because he's realized he has nothing but made up "facts" and hearsay to support his retarded blathering. |
|
|
| WittyHandle |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I can't wait till karma decides that it's time to settle up. |
Something tells me you don't really believe in karma. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by WittyHandle
Something tells me you don't really believe in karma. |
I'm pretty sure he believes in a karma which is conceptually consistent with his world view, so figuratively - yes - the notion of karma is present, replete with all of the consequential implications inherent to one's own actions. If we're discussing the literal karma and its notion of exponential dividends related to ones actions taken against or to the benefit of others in this life and disbursed in the next, let alone what constitutes either detriment or benevolence - that is very much up for grabs, I'm afraid. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Actually, I was waiting for you to take the bait on that comment, knowing how you would react, so I could show you how misinformed you are, eager to snap up the headlines without reading the fine print.
. |
Oh, so I get it, what you're saying is that you gave a false defence for being Iraq, just to bait me in to posting the truth about the non existant WDMs so you could post an explanation for the only thing they found in Iraq which was already known and tracked.
Got it makes total sense :p
So let's get back on point and away from your distraction: Why did we go in to Iraq?
For WMD that didn't exist, because Halliburton wanted the oil. No more no less,
Why did we go in to Libya? To stop a humanitarian disaster, as provided for by the congressional act of 1973 which allows military forcefor 60 days without congressional approval for such instances as libya.
And guess what, the USA went in did its thing and got out. There are currently no US flights, military or personell in military action in Libya, |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Oh, so I get it, what you're saying is that you gave a false defence for being Iraq, just to bait me in to posting the truth about the non existant WDMs so you could post an explanation for the only thing they found in Iraq which was already known and tracked.
Got it makes total sense :p |
The yellow cake comment was a small part of the overall discussion. You are the one who tried to refute its legitimacy by quoting the Discovery channel.
| quote: | So let's get back on point and away from your distraction: Why did we go in to Iraq?
For WMD that didn't exist, because Halliburton wanted the oil. No more no less,
Why did we go in to Libya? To stop a humanitarian disaster, as provided for by the congressional act of 1973 which allows military forcefor 60 days without congressional approval for such instances as libya.
And guess what, the USA went in did its thing and got out. There are currently no US flights, military or personell in military action in Libya, |
That's right! We went in to Iraq to hook up Halliburton. Boy we're sure reaping the rewards on that oil too- er, I mean we haven't seen a drop of it. And suuuuure. We went into Libya for the noble cause of "humanitarianism"... while we sit back and watch millions get slaughtered in the Congo, Darfur; hundreds gunned down in Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria in recent weeks; thousands of Christians massacred in the Ivory Coast last week by Muslim extremists. You must be so proud to be an Obama supporter and lap up the moral high ground of his selective humanitarianism.
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
It's easy to respond with pictures when you're out of words :gsmile: |
Pretty sure you were the one who decided to take his ball and go home. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
The yellow cake comment was a small part of the overall discussion. You are the one who tried to refute its legitimacy by quoting the Discovery channel.
|
Well don't blame me, you brought it up when you were trying to refute why we got in to Iraq.
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
That's right! We went in to Iraq to hook up Halliburton. Boy we're sure reaping the rewards on that oil too- er, I mean we haven't seen a drop of it. And suuuuure.
|
True, but I hate to break it to you, that just means that Cheyney is on capitalizing :haha:
....but having said that, he did just fine on the defense contracts that buddy boy bush handed to him "equipping" the troops (and we know how that turned out). On the food alone halliburton has made $5bn to date. I could go on but let's leave the profiteering there.
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
We went into Libya for the noble cause of "humanitarianism"... while we sit back and watch millions get slaughtered in the Congo, Darfur; hundreds gunned down in Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria in recent weeks; thousands of Christians massacred in the Ivory Coast last week by Muslim extremists. You must be so proud to be an Obama supporter and lap up the moral high ground of his selective humanitarianism.
|
Oh I agree about the double standard (see my previous post about Mugabe), but the fact that the US went in, and got out (unlike both of Bush's wars) shows this was humanitarian.
You;re just angry because unlike bush, he didn't it up (twice) :toothless |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Boy we're sure reaping the rewards on that oil too- er, I mean we haven't seen a drop of it.
|
just a clarification kevin. I don't want anyone to be mislead so i have to post some facts.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ent/import.html
look who made #6 on the top 15 US imports. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
True, but I hate to break it to you, that just means that Cheyney is on capitalizing :haha:
....but having said that, he did just fine on the defense contracts that buddy boy bush handed to him "equipping" the troops (and we know how that turned out). On the food alone halliburton has made $5bn to date. I could go on but let's leave the profiteering there. |
If you want to have a crony capitalism debate on which administration was worse, this one or the last, I'll be happy to go there. *Ahem... General Electric*
| quote: | Oh I agree about the double standard (see my previous post about Mugabe), but the fact that the US went in, and got out (unlike both of Bush's wars) shows this was humanitarian.
You're just angry because unlike bush, he didn't it up (twice) :toothless |
You can say we're out, but everyone knows US money finances NATO and US leadership runs it. The "Arab League" and France/Britain have virtually zero military assets involved in any way. But it's still too early to tell if he ed it up... how would we know? First Ghaddafi had to go, then he didn't... and different parts of his administration from him, to Clinton, to Holder, to Gates, were saying different things at the same time. If the administration believed "he had lost the legitimacy to lead", it should have acted when the rebels had the momentum and not wait 3+ weeks as they were systematically gunned down; instead they just issued threats and demands for Ghaddafi to go without commensurate efforts to follow up the saber rattling. It looks like we're making up as we go along, always reacting to the populism of the moment (see Egypt).
I just can't ing stand the balls they have regarding what they are doing, considering Joe Biden said in 2002 that any president should be impeached who committed to any type of military action without Congressional approval, and Obama said "we should never attack an oil producing muslim country that doesn't pose an imminent threat to the U.S." Peoples' memory is short lived, and the same ones that cheered on those past statements are gleefully supporting his hypocrisy as "the right thing to do" now. It's sickening. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
and to give a little leg room for you kevin (to be honest i've only been scanning very breifly through the posts) but revenues for that oil are primarily seen by the iraqi government. foreign workers however are those producing the oil and will take from some of those revenues for labour etc.
Of course we all know that paying market price for the crude, the aggregates of it through refining are what really rack in the big money. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
If you want to have a crony capitalism debate on which administration was worse, this one or the last, I'll be happy to go there. *Ahem... General Electric*
|
I agree, but don't change subject. Giving GE tax breaks so they pay nothing is not the same as invading another country, killing civilians and executing their leader (regardless of how much I think he deserved it),
We're still in Iraq because bush started a war just for oil, and you can't defend it, and you know it, which is why you keep trying to change the subject.
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
You can say we're out, but everyone knows US money finances NATO and US leadership runs it. The "Arab League" and France/Britain have virtually zero military assets involved in any way. But it's still too early to tell if he ed it up... how would we know? First Ghaddafi had to go, then he didn't... and different parts of his administration from him, to Clinton, to Holder, to Gates, were saying different things at the same time. If the administration believed "he had lost the legitimacy to lead", it should have acted when the rebels had the momentum and not wait 3+ weeks as they were systematically gunned down; instead they just issued threats and demands for Ghaddafi to go without commensurate efforts to follow up the saber rattling. It looks like we're making up as we go along, always reacting to the populism of the moment (see Egypt).
I just can't ing stand the balls they have regarding what they are doing, considering Joe Biden said in 2002 that any president should be impeached who committed to any type of military action without Congressional approval, and Obama said "we should never attack an oil producing muslim country that doesn't pose an imminent threat to the U.S." Peoples' memory is short lived, and the same ones that cheered on those past statements are gleefully supporting his hypocrisy as "the right thing to do" now. It's sickening. |
You can suppose whatever you want about the future but the USA as of right now has zero assetts active in Libya. They were in and out, something that Bush could not achieve in 8 years.
you can be sick all you want, but cancer is the republican and and their wars, not this. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I agree, but don't change subject. Giving GE tax breaks so they pay nothing is not the same as invading another country, killing civilians and executing their leader (regardless of how much I think he deserved it),
We're still in Iraq because bush started a war just for oil, and you can't defend it, and you know it, which is why you keep trying to change the subject. |
I'm not changing the subject. I do not believe we started a war for oil, and reject your premise that we committed hundreds of thousands of servicemen to Iraq so Cheney could get sweetheart deals for Halliburton. That is bordering on 9/11 trutherism territory. BTW- the Iraqi govt. held Saddam on trial an executed him... we did not.
| quote: | You can suppose whatever you want about the future but the USA as of right now has zero assetts active in Libya. They were in and out, something that Bush could not achieve in 8 years.
you can be sick all you want, but cancer is the republican and and their wars, not this. |
Yes or no: does the United States finance the majority of NATO? Yes or no: is NATO comprised of more U.S. military assets than any other entity? (hint: rhetorical).
It's sad that you fully grasp the reality of Obama and Biden's statements I mentioned in my last post, yet you completely support what they are doing in Libya. It's like you're fine with whatever, as long as Obama comes out looking good. Hey, we've had 858 soldiers die in Afghanistan under Obama's tenure, and his promise to bring all troops home from Iraq in 16 months is 11 months overdue. Doesn't matter either though, does it? Whatever he does is ok because he holds some moral high ground in your mind I guess? |
|
|
|
|
