Hussein info.... - Page 5

Lexington_Steele · 2003-03-10, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
As for a war for oil, that's a joke, we only get 30% of our oil from that region (none of which is from Iraq). Let's say it is just for oil, wouldn't it be alot smarter and alot better politically to drill in the hellhole that is ANWAR? We've got 100% of our oil needs for the next 35 years just sitting there.

You know why we get no oil from Iraq? Because of sanctions against Iraq. If there were no sanctions against Iraq, the US would still not recive much oil directly from Iraq, becuase Iraq refuses to give us deals (although there were post sanction deals planned for other countries like France Germany and Russia).

Do you really beleive that the Iraqi government, which will be composed of an entirely American administration, will not give preferential treatment to US companies?

Why don't we drill somewhere else? That is because of how rediculously cheap it is to drill the oil in Iraq and how high quality the oil is. This is the same reason why the Russians are so interesterd in Iraqi oil even though they have lots of oil themselves.

Lexington_Steele · 2003-03-10, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
"Again your opinion, not fact."

Not true, it is fact. I've got the proof somewhere around here. The numbers you see that say otherwise are not in correct context, and are usually in political debates (much like this one), and are contrued to be misleading. I'll try and find the official numbers sometime in the next few days. Besides, we both know that you can twist anything to suit your side.

The bottom line is that you can find creditable economists that will atribute the economic boom to the Reagan administrtation, and I can find creditable economists that can atribute it to somewhere else; you can find economists that credit the decline to the Clinton administration and and I can find one that attributes it to somewhere else?

How about this question: if the economy takes an upturn in the next 4-6 years, do you plan on crediting Clinton with the upturn?

Lexington_Steele · 2003-03-10, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
Besides, we both know that you can twist anything to suit your side.

That is because I am good at what I do.

-------------------------------- Lex

And most importantly:

Arshune · 2003-03-10, 05:08 PM

My economics teacher always taught us that economic policy's impact is vastly overshadowed by the events of the time. I think that holds water, I mean the ultimate economic control is in the minds of the people, isn't it? So go buy some stock, ya lazy bums!

Gortha · 2003-03-10, 05:21 PM

Thx @ Lex.... for the opinion-thing

@Navaron:

Let me tell u something.
It was a fault to try to talk about economic with a fan/elector of the conservatives.
It is the same as in germany, the conservatives say: NOOOO the Social Party af Germany did all the fault and made the owing debts and the Socials say: NOOOO the Chrisian German Union made all the depts!!!!!
And so on..... so lets delete the discussion abaut US-Economics out auf this thread.

And to all the Americans who think the most people of the world are with their political course.... NO the most arent.... 80 % of the Europe population are aginst war without UN-Mandate.... the Russians too, nearly whole Asia too, etc...

And u talk about the Muslims/Arabs etc.... they would be the last who will support you. Okay the Saudis... they are bought.

Blairs Government started to collapse... he�ll lose his face.
harhar *freu*

Let�s say u many of u are blind because of your TV.... u believe very thing your Government says... the are washing your head... your TV-Stations making War-Propagande en masse.
They are using September 11 to wash the American brains with patriotism.

Another Lie out of your government:

Saddam never supports Bin Laden, so why so many of u think he has something to do with WTC?

Where is your mojority?
Let me just say ..... vEtO ! ;P
But the Veto isn�t a must.... the US-Government never get those 9 votes.

Confectrix · 2003-03-10, 05:46 PM

Gortha:

I do not quite understand your lack of understanding in this matter. This preparation for war is not about Iraq's link to terrorism which we both know is evident and dynamic. This proposed war is about the enforcement of United Nations mandates.

I admire Prime Minister Blair for his staunch and steadfast will to continue on his course despite his political career. Your chancellor should model after this great leader. Blair stands for principle; Shroeder does not.

This war will occur with or without UN approval. How can the UN demand Iraq disarm as in SR 1441 but yet never act? France, Germany, and Russia are fast becoming problems for the world. The world is with us; France, Germany and Russia [the big ones] are not. France for some reason thinks it IS the EU. Germany runs elections by going against our policies. Russia is a dump with a decaying military which if not helped by us, Russian WMD would be in the hands of terrorists. I hate to say it; but the EU is dying.

All I know is; we will see how fast France and Gang come up with an excuse when the US uncovers WMD after taking Iraq.

Gortha · 2003-03-10, 05:56 PM

@Confectrix:

LoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL ;D

U really don�t know many whats goin on in the world.

I know, u know it out of your TV..... rotfl

Contifex u are not accountable whats your Government is doing...

after all only 14 % of the Americans elected Bush and only ~1/3 of the Americans went to the Presidental elections.... the biggest and BAD Joke is, that Gore had more votes than Bush.... so u really can�t anything for your Government.

Blair is a complete Idiot, he�s doning not what his people wants WHO elected him!

*sorryfortheflamesbutidisagreewithyourwisdom*

EDIT:

PS: France and Germany never said Saddam has no WDM�s.... but we want to find them without 100 - thousends of dead people, if there where WDMs.

Navaron · 2003-03-10, 06:03 PM

Yet again Gortha astounds us with a brilliant display of facts.

Confectrix · 2003-03-10, 06:07 PM

Gortha:

First off, I watch very little television and do more reading. I live in this nation of which you speak and thus I am very able to accuratly give you a true statement as to the current state of affairs. Your country however has a leader which is against our president and policy because it got him in office. I would try to shift through the crap you see and hear everyday in your own country.

Blair is doing what the people want; just not what all of the people want. Also, many people admire Blair; despite their opinion on the Iraq situation. They want a leader with principle; not a coward who does everything he can to get in and stay in office.

Your numbers are way off. Besides we elect by electorial college so he is legally elected. I have no complaints. Nor did anyone else prior to this election. Seems greed itched its way in this time.

We've spent 12 years trying to find and disarm weapons which sould have never been there to begin with. Saddam should give up those weapons. That's the issue.

Inspectors are to oversee the disarmarment; not chase the weapons down.

What do you think would happen if we pull our 300k troops out?

Gortha · 2003-03-10, 06:08 PM

Gore hadn�t more votes than bush? ;o
Does everybody telling shit about that�...

Okay, i�ll got berserk again... i will write more harmless in the next posts.

Confectrix · 2003-03-10, 06:10 PM

Two words:

Electorial College.

Please read up on how we do things. Then we can aruge who's right or wrong.

Gortha · 2003-03-10, 06:13 PM

I do not undersand your question....

u have 200 k Troops there.... whats the gerat difference if u put 300 k Troops there.
It�s nonsense...

Confectrix pls tell me, why is it a bad idea to give the inspectors more time to disarm or monitor Saddam istead of killing many people with a war?

Gortha · 2003-03-10, 06:17 PM

Now i am confused.... ;P

There are some Books about Bush and many true stories about
Bush�s election.... in all these writings i can read out that Gore had won the Election if they did�t stop counting the votes.

pls explain me "Electorial College"... it seems to be a voting-system...

PS: anyway a voter turnout of 1/3 is poor

Navaron · 2003-03-10, 06:17 PM

"Confectrix pls tell me, why is it a bad idea to give the inspectors more time to disarm or monitor Saddam istead of killing many people with a war?"

What's the point? I've told you, he'll tell you. You're just going to ignore it and post why Bush sucks. For someone with such a huge opinion, you have very little pride because you have not yet directly opposed one fact yet. You constantly say how we are stupid and brainwashed by our news - I can assure you that is not the case. In fact, I am very willing to believe that I check more global news sources than you. You are the one who keeps spouting the same company line, I've yet to hear an idea come from you that I haven't heard before ver batim.

Confectrix · 2003-03-10, 06:20 PM

Gortha:

It was not questioning the fact if we put more troops there; but rather what would happen if we pulled our troopes out.

We have given the inspectors twelve years and three months. No substanial progress has been made. Iraq has the inherant policy that if something is dragged out long enough; it'll drop below priority status; which has happend before. Pres. Bush and tohers are ensuring this desn't happen again. There are two solutions to this conflict: Saddam disarms or we disarm him.

He is very good at hiding things. Evidence presented at the UN by Colin Powell articulate that. Read up on it if you want to know more. I don't care to keep writing to you about the same stuff in a different way.

Which is better:

Give inspectors the time they want; let the issue subside like the last 12 years has done and then find out in the next ten years that Iraq has WMD and will use them.

OR

Go in now; with US technology there will be limited civilian causalties; and disarm Iraq.