John Keegan: Don't know much about history

I think its kind of funny that both you guys claim to be independent.

 

I think they're the same person, someone who wanted to make fun of independents.

 

How about as a humanitarian effort to those who were constantly being tortured or killed and lived in fear?


If humanitarian reasons are the goal, then the Bush administration was simply stupid. We could have helped far more people, with the use of far less resources, and gained a great deal more international support and admiration had we targetted any number of other regions. If this was the reason to go into Iraq, then the Bush administration is simply inefficient and wasteful.

 

basso claims to be independant?

Wow.

 

I am stunned that the right would debase itself by supporting Israel and the IDF who shoot rubber bullets at the heads of small children while they play outside. immoral. mean. pathetic.

 

Where did I try and side with Saddam or the suicide bombers?

I merely mentioned the whole story and not the half-truth that gets the most airplay.

What is sad, pathetic, and offensive is the fact is that you would accuse me of siding with Saddam, or suicide bombings. I'm sure it was probably a misunderstanding on your part, but for the record I have never supported Saddam, or suicide bombers who kill civilians. There is nothing in my post that indicates that I did either, unless by design or mistake someone inserted that meaning on their own.

 

Shouldn't just being a threat be enought? At what point does someone become immenient threat?

 

Off the top of my head-


Bush and advisors thought invasion and regime change would be relatively easy and therefore the following benefits would come at little cost-


Strategic influence in the oil rich Middle East.

Guaranteed benefits to core supporters (weapons manufacturers, contractors, etc.)

Political gain.

It was a massive miscalculation by the Administration.

 

I just think it was a judgement call -- the above two posts pose questions that I think in the final analysis, come down to judgement calls. I think they made the wrong judgement, that's all. In my judgement, ousting Saddam -- a fine end, conceptually -- did not justify the means.

They gambled alot of credibility, alot of moral / ethical standing in the world, alot of lives, and, in my judgement, we lost more than they gained. Is it a gain to have Saddam out? Sure. But if you're going to help fuel an century of suicidal terrorism, you better have some pretty solid planning, solid reasoning and solid allies. I don't think our administration is evil, i just dont think they do alot of evidence-based research, contigency-planning or decent communication and implementation of the American ideals I am most fond of.

Was Saddam an imminent threat? Depends on your definition. Not mine. Was he more of a threat than North Korea? Was he enough of a threat that we could not have formed a more solid, credible coalition of countries to knock him out of power? Was he so much of a threat that we needed to send our men and women to be killed to oust him right then and there? I don't think so.

Call me names, call me a liar, call me a liberal, call me an idiot, call me gutless, whatever, that sort of thing does not make an argument stronger to me. My judgement -- that the end did not justify the means -- is much more likely to change with reason or evidence, and not one heck of a lot is coming down the pipe. What do I have vested in seeing our country fail? I do hear a fair amount of "you stupid liberals hate america and our troops and are greedy and want to drive stupid hybrid cars! Raaaaah!!!!!" That's always nice. But not alot of reasonable explanations as to why we made a good judgement, or much evidence that our current administration has a good mechanism in place for making important decisions.

 

1) Rocketman95, I accept your admission that you were speaking out of school with your initial response in this thread. Your inability to defend yourself is very telling.

2) Some liberals around here simply refuse to believe it is in the United States' best interest to have a stable Middle East. Sure, it won't be stable *immediately* after instituting a democracy, but the thought is that long-term it will be closer to stable than it has been historically. The Middle East is *central* to the security of this nation. Our economy is highly dependent on the Middle East, as fuel costs are borne by virtually every economic sector. If you don't think a strong economy leads to security and diplomatic power, then you need to start back at square 1. The terrorist breeding ground that Iraq was (and training facility, and cash provider, etc) was also a security threat. Of course the blindly partisan liberals conveniently ignore these issues. Instead, they concoct insane conspiracy theories about enriching a group of contractors... Typical liberals. Patience and caution in casting judgment is something they do *only* when it is politically convenient....denigrating American troops and their leaders is something they never hesitate to do. No wonder they have no power at the national level.

 

wrong

"The top sources of U.S. crude oil imports in March 2004 were: Canada (1.583 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.576 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.478 million barrels per day), Venezuela (1.343 million barrels per day) and Nigeria (1.236 million barrels per day). Rounding out the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (0.621 million barrels per day), Angola (0.336 million barrels per day), United Kingdom (0.293 million barrels per day), Algeria (0.253 million barrels per day), and Norway (0.217 million barrels per day)."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html


Energy costs are high right now b/c of political turmoil in Nigeria and Venezuelian production has not returned to pre-strike levels

The US only gets about 30% of its supply from the Middle East

 

Chump, instead of me humiliating you like I should, and like you deserve, I will politely tell you that OPEC has a strong influence on oil prices. Oil is a worldwide market. Regardless of where the oil is imported from, the Middle East plays an enormous role in what buyers pay for oil. This is very very basic. I suggest you get the basics down before attempting to step to The_Conquistador.

While you're at it, perhaps you could convince the liberals to vote for the Energy Bill, develop precious resources in the desolate regions of Alaska, and end the damaging environmental constraints which burden the producers of energy.

How many times will you step to me before realizing that you can't win?

 

the fact that Americans are driving more miles than ever before, millions and millions of them with gas guzzling SUV's have 10x more to do with the price of gas than what little oil we could get out of the ground in the protected lands of Alaska, nevermind the fact that it would take 5-7 years min for any of that oil to reach market, experts agree that the reserves in Alaska would have little to no effect on America's dependance on foreign oil

I never said that OPEC has no influence on oil prices, I know reading comprehension is your weakness, but if you read what I said, oil prices are high now not b/c of turbulance in the M.E, but for the reasons I have listed for you.

I do find it curious that you think the whole Blood for Oil rhetoric is pure B.S, but label most Democratic policies as vote buying...how unsprisingly hypocritical of you


Raising MPG standards on SUVs and trucks and building more refineries will do more to solve our energy crisis than drilling in Alaska will ever do

 

Basso, I believe different people in the administration had their own reasons.

The reasons I believe Bush went to war would be just my guess since the only evidence we have are the varying reasons that Bush has used at different times.

 

Yes the reason we discredited evidence was because we were scared that Bush might look good. That why the intel community discredited the Al-Q/Saddam links too. They can't stand for Bush to look good.

I thought initially after 9/11 did look good. He made some minor errors, but waiting and gathering proof about Al-Qaeda and AFghanistan was a great move, and it was handled very well. The initial coalition going into Afghanistan seemed to be a real positive as well. For the record that made Bush look good, and I didn't doubt one bit of the evidence presented in support of that action.

With Iraq, however, it was a different story. The evidence turned up time and time again to be different than what Bush and his administration claimed it was. After being told one thing so many times and having the facts turn out to be something else entirely, only a fool would continue to believe evidence without investigating, questioning, and verifying.

The administration was wrong about aluminum tubing, they were wrong about Al-Qaeda connections, they were wrong mobile weapons labs, they were wrong about the stockpiles of WMD's, They were wrong about nukes etc. Time and time again they said one thing, and the evidence turned out to be faulty, incorrect, or a complete forgery. After being presented with such evidence shouldn't we be weary?

If I gave you five fake $20 and told you I was paying a $100 debt, would you just accept the next bit of money I gave you? Or would you want to make sure it was real?

So far that's all we've asked for, and so far we haven't gotten the real thing.

 

Chump, you have been completely embarrassed. You have so utterly failed in your attempt to strike me, that you are genuinely scared at this point. You are scared at how you will next be exposed for all to see. The great thing about this BBS is that it is methodical. You have all the time in the world to respond. Oodles. Yet you hastily post garbage that is easily refuted. I get the feeling that you acquire a touch of nervousness upon selecting the 'post' button. You know that you have glaring holes in your argument, yet you refuse to take the time to thoroughly research them to cover yourself. Haste makes waste. It certainly does.

You said, by implication, that the Middle East does not impact fuel costs in the American economy. To support this flawed assertion, you cited import statistics for oil. After learning from me that oil is a global commodity with a worldwide market that determines its price, you have now redefined your argument in an attempt to prolong the discussion while not admitting defeat. It is folly to think that I would be unable to recognize this very transparent behavior. It is folly to think that anyone actually believes you.

Apparently you accept that the market determines the price of oil, yet you refuse to accept that demand and supply determinants create this market. Obviously it is difficult to debate basic economics with someone who is unable to grasp this very simple concept, as you most certainly are unable to do. Because you fail to understand the determinants of supply, it does not surprise me that you fail to understand how the production of America's own precious fuel resources in a desolate, remote region of Alaska will impact the global price of oil. But there is a little nugget of truth in your otherwise blatantly false attempt at logic. Building more refineries will certainly drive down the price of refined products. I applaud you for recognizing this. Of course I realize that you are simply regurgitating something that you read in a publication – my guess would be Time or another magazine of low intellectual rigor. It is a shame that you do not understand why additional refining capacity can not be built. Take down the environmental regulations that strangle the industry, and decrease the absurd permitting regulations involved in building a new refinery, and you have a recipe for additional refining capacity.

John Forbes Kerry is smart to stay away from the gas price issue. It directly conflicts with his policy stances on taxation (he proposed many times a $0.50/gallon incremental tax) and environmental overprotection (he is probably the legislator most responsible for demagoguing ANWR). Forbes Kerry has so little credibility on the matter that he is loathe to broach the issue. Chump, I hate to humiliate you like that… but you can’t say you didn’t deserve it. Have a very good evening, friend.

 

this is as far as I got with your pesudo intellectual attempt at your one man freak show you like to call , psychological warfare, before I just had to laugh at you

I never said the M.E. doesn't impact fuel prices in the US economy, you just want me to be saying that so you can tear it (me) down, do your lil fruity dance and declare yourself the greatest

all you can muster up is to debate against a conclusion i never drew?

pathetic

if you took the time to read (left to right, up to down) my posts before wetting yourself over the thought that producing some insecure 'masterpiece' will replace that gaping hole in your soul and make you feel all warm and fuzzy, you would notice that I was countering your point that our economy was 'highly dependent' on a stable M.E. because of oil costs. We only get 30% of our oil from the region. Stock levels of oil are low, but not low enough to warrent this high of a price for oil. Like I said in my earlier posts, Nigeria hasn't resumed full production b/c of internal (NON-OPEC) factors as well as Venezuela (NON OPEC FACTORS). Americans are driving more (fear of flying, fear of terror attacks), and are driving less fuel efficient cars. These factors are causing energy costs to be higher than expected. Were you just dozing off during that whole Venezuelian strike thing?


You've really mastered, what I like to call "Rushspeak"

you like to add adjectives to describe things in extremes, inorder to mask the negatives of your assertations

example

" it does not surprise me that you fail to understand how the production of America's own precious fuel resources in a desolate, remote region of Alaska will impact the global price of oil."

b/c most of us will never see it, we won't miss it kinda carny trick?

"the bears and elk herds are out in BFE Alaska? f em! All I care about is myself."

fuzy logic

 

Methinks you have redefined the word "logic".