because i come across strong...and i try to let the other person know that i'm not attempting to insult their intelligence. i don't always know if i'm misunderstanding them....or if i'd understand better if we were actually talking face to face. and i don't want to come across as a jerk. there's no need for it...so in order to defuse any of my statements which might be interpreted as "looking down" on someone or "playing down" to someone, i start with a quick statement like that. trying to avoid getting personal, i suppose. guess i'm a politician at heart...but i am honest!
I just like the way "Pyrrich" sounds. It's more like getting to the end of the rainbow and finding an empty pot. Or maybe it's like hiring Dunleavy. You don't get anything out of it but you can say you did. Actually it's kind of like winning a consolation prize. You lost, but you can take something home.
This is a new low. I can only smile, and thank God above that you people are a small minority of our population.
I can't say for sure, but I doubt people who were crying "no war for oil" actually meant "no war against countries who have a vast amount of natural resources that will provide a stable econimic foundation for them to rebuild their own nation upon!" *pumps fist in the air* Or who knows, maybe that is what the anti-war crowd meant, but it just didn't make for a very good slogan...too wordy. If you were one of those people, then I concede...you were correct! Sarcasm off. Come on, MacB! You know 99.999%, scrath that, 100% of the anti-war crowd who were crying "OIL OIL OIL" were referring to the notion that America was invading simply to <i>steal</i> oil for themselves or grant oil related contracts to American businesses. These recent quotes do nothing to substantiate that. Suggesting those who claimed the "only difference between Iraq and other nations we don't invade is oil were correct" is nothing more than a semantical victory. Congratulations, your slogan was vague enough and broad enough to encompass every single reason why oil might have been a factor in deciding to go to war, whether the motive was either good or bad! However, we both know what the anti-war crowd's <i>real</i> intention was when bringing up the oil issue. It was to show America's reason for going to war as selfish and sinister. Mr. Wolfowitz's recent quotes did nothing to validate that. So again, what was that the anti-warriors were so "correct" about?
Well, look. I, for one, said all along the war was related to oil, and that oil is worth fighting for. We need the oil in the market system, not on some back door pricefix program to France, Germany and Russia through the UN via "oil for food". Sorry you don't get that. "Peace" was about oil, and so was war. You can have it either way. Personally, I prefer the new order to the old one, in US terms.
KingCheetah: Well guess what? Iraqis are going to be choosing who gets those contracts, not us. That announcement was made last week, to little fanfare, because it pretty much blows this particular theory out of the water. The Iraqis said that they are not going to hold an antiwar stance against any bidders, either. Now, I don't know if they'll actually do that, but - well, it's up to them, not us. I just gave you a defense. And I only resort to namecalling when the dialogue on an issue drops below the sixth grade level. The whole "it was all about oil" idea is simply r****ded, and displays a frightening lack of understanding of how the real world works. Its proponents deserve to be called childish names. MacBeth: Hey Mr. BigBrain - you do realize that oil is a global commodity, and once it is sold to anyone it effectively goes into a global supply, are you not? That oil is just as likely to end up in that stinkhole we call France as it is in Wisconsin. That's what you guys don't get. Everybody is going to buy Iraq's oil, not just us. And the Iraqis are going to get the revenues. Not Halliburton. I'm not really inclined to comment on your other silly comments in this thread. Pyrrhic victory? Sh*t. Now we are officially in the Twilight Zone. rezdawg: See the Gallup poll I posted in the "WMD? Who cares?" thread. You are a distinct minority here, dawg.
It's a Gallup poll. You know, the most respected polling organization in the nation? Why don't you go read the poll? It might be interesting to discover how few Americans share your views on things. But in answer to your question: Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,019 national adults, aged 18+, conducted May 30-June 1, 2003. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. So no, it wasn't a roomfull of Republicans. It was a statistically validrandomly selected sample (all Gallup poll samples are selected randomly), which makes its results quite valid as far as sampling goes. Here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030604.asp
I dont see what point this poll serves for you. What, that republicans are happy with the war while independents and democrats arent as happy with it? It shows nothing to prove that I am part of the minority.
Jesus Christ, why is it that you people never bother reading polls, sources, articles evidence - whatever - anything anyone posts that you won't like you simply refuse to read. Go read the poll and ask me that question again. If you can't figure it our then you can't read. It is as straightforward as it can get. Here's the gist of it though, just in case you still won't read it: Americans for the most part don't care if whether we find WMD, they still think the war was justified; they do not think that Bush is lying; and support/opposition for the war was very partisan. Do you understand now?
Here is a question the poll asked: The War is justified even without evidence of WMD: 80% of Republicans agreed. 52% of Independents agreed. 36% of Democrats agreed. Now, tell me...how am i part of the small minority? Can you not do the math or am I having trouble reading the poll?
Guardian issues correction: Correction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Wolfowitz A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the department of defence website, "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/
At least they got rid of the article before it went to print. Still, that is pretty piss poor job of reporting. I guess it's all about getting the headlines that will sell papers, and truth be damned unless you get caught. B
