Re: So the war on Iraq was decided before 9/11

OMG PARAGON... wow what took u so long? or mayb i just have not seen u post in a while, heh sorry for changing topic. continue

 

Mods, the purpose of this post is not to gain minerals, but rather knock some sense into our good friend paragon, who in the three days I've been posting here has shown to have quite an attitude. You can remove the minerals I make from this post if I have quoted too much.

Awesome.

They justify what you say, but apparently you can't knock down mine, get frustrated, and resort to verbal violence mentioned above. Here's a little timeline so you can reread it and hopefully realize how childish you are.

Ok, my first post, harmless. Just make a mistake with the petroleum issue. Ok. Your reply:

Ok, here you corrected my mistake, said I went along with everyone else, and said I knew shit about anything. You also started with the sarcasm. Or is your highness going to deny that?

Then my answer:

Here, I was sarcastic as well, in response to yours, and countered your arguments against mine. You again:

Your counter arguments. They don't really knock mine down, but they prove your point. Here, you mention that it is the generally accepted story and that the "oil radical bullshit" is mine. Fallacies I won't bother to correct. You also mentioned I got "all pissy" and can't get my facts straight. Also, are you sure I'm the dense one here? By this point you powered me down saying "you're dumb".

My way of saying whatever, check out the facts for yourself. Done arguing.

You assume my source of information is blogs, again saying I know nothing I'm talking about because I disagree with you. You add an "if" at the end, so no harm done here.
At this point you also show up in that chat channel, say "You are stupid, I feel sorry for you" and leaves.

For the finishing move, you degrade yourself even further by posting this:

Again, your word is "law", because all your facts are straight. Again you reference the blogs and cheap reporters you create in a failed attempt to disqualify my information. Your sarcasm came first, I'm not the one getting "high-horsed", and you are indeed attacking "poor little me", which I don't think is the objective of this discussion, is it? Again, you come back to the I'm talking "shit out of context". If you can find reliable sources of information supporting that statement great, if not, it is once again considered an insult.

After reading this, what is your conclusion? Even if your arguments were all right and mine were all wrong, who here is the one whos acting more childish? Does you being the most smited member on this forum have anything to do with it?

I won't waste any more time with you, this is my last post on this topic. Refer to this as a last-ditch attempt to make you realize how much you degrade yourself by acting immaturely.

 

uhh, no. Do you?

I see however that you failed to notice the quotation marks. They were there for a reason.

 

Hadean - I just finished reading another book on this topic and i've been reading books on this topic since mid july. I can assure you that I am right.

Z-BosoN - my conclusion is that you are in fact wrong and you are now using the fact that I'm being a dick to you as a cover so that you can more safely exit the discussion

NateSMZ - good

 

one thing is kinda strange: no one thought of a third possibility for the cause of 9/11, what if it were concurrents of a company inside the building and they only ment to smash that office

 

Now para is right that oil does not make sense (or cents in this case) as the reason to go to war. It would be of little to no advantage as the three he mentioned before are the biggest suppliers of oil in the world. What makes more sense, and call me a conspiracy theorist if you must, is that Bush went to war for the sake of war. Now I dont mean this as Bush is a war monger, but what industry has become enormously rich through the united states? And what industry depends upon war and conflict to thrive? Obviously weapons firms and military vehicle manufacturers. When people refer to it as a billion dollar industry they're lying to themselves. It's a trillion dollar industry. Because their customers are in no way limited to the United States, therefore global conflict is it's best interest.

For those of you who dont believe me, look up the price of a single m1a2 Abrams. Or look up the price of a single F-16 Falcon or an F-18 Hornet. Hell, look up how much it costs to equip one soldier. And then multiply the number you come up with by about 200 thousand (last I checked thats a rough estimate of the United States standing army.)

*Iff that is also a possibility as the owners took out a ridiculous policy on both the towers that leaned towards reimbursement through acts of terrorism. It definitely makes them suspicious but the US got what they wanted and didnt give a shit to put them under the microscope.

 

exactly hadean, that's what's what i implied in an earlier post, the weapon manufacturers effectively won the election for bush and now bush had to keep his side of the bargain. the fact that iraq has lots of oil is sinply a nice bonus and all the more reason to start the war.

 

USA's army cost is about 4% (or something like that) of USA's BNP which i think is something around 505 billion dollars (every year i think) ((why cant they just give that money to me ))


anyway..
I think  that bush attacked Iraq because saddam had done to much shit in his country, the oil is just a bonus


v: mayby

 

beacause you'd buy cats with it

 

Remember that the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993 in a terrorist attack but that bombing failed to knock down the towers. To think that they would just give up on knocking it down after failing to do it once is not logical.

And Bush could have just gone to war because he legitimately thought that it was the right thing to do and that he was wrong about that. By Occam's razor the simplest solution is usually the right one. Drawing in all these outside possibilities is nothing but conspiracy theorizing. I really don't see what people don't want to just say that Bush made a bad decision that he actually thought was the right one. To me that is worse for him than him making a decision based on interest groups because the war is actually serving those interest groups while nothing is being served by his belief in it being the right thing to do being wrong.

 

Indeed, Saddam Hussein did horrible to his people and he killed alot of his people

 

@ paragon, because the world doesn't work like that, the us president doesn't take such unilateral decisions based on his own beliefs. politics is the worst of human nature, whoever has power is the good guy, and the victor writes the history.

 

BnechbReaker you make it sound like all leader's is assholes

and how do we know that he didn't make the choice because he thought it was the right thing to do?

 

because that's not how the world works...

if there are no interests to be gained then nobody would support bush even if he passionately or even madly believed for all his worth that it was the right think to do.

 

for me the best political sistem is a absolute democracy where everybody votes through the internet every must vote for every vote

 

BnechbReaker - So then you're a Realist. Realists think that all leaders operate in the same way. If this were true than it wouldn't matter who was president because they would all be acting to enhance the interest of their state through the same means. However, they only look at one side of the picture. People have their own beliefs and reasonings for doing things. Two vastly different people in the same situation will make different decisions. Also, I never said that there were no interests involved. Obviously national security is an interest of the president but it isn't necessarily an interest of the special interest groups. Your view is an incorrect view of the world, not mine. Look at Bush Sr. They were in the position to take down Saddam but they didn't because they knew that it was a bad idea. The oil companies, weapons industry, and all those people who could gain from the US occupying Iraq were still around back then but Bush Sr. knew that it was not a good idea.

 

your comparison between w.bush with his father is not a unnecessarily a correct one

they are more than 10 years apart and the world has change dramatically during this period. in 1991 the eu wasn't so well organised and there wasn't the euro, in 1991 the US economy was more prosperous and the dollar much stronger, in 1991 the ussr had just collapsed, in 1991 china way less developed than it is now.

in the few years prior to the 1st gulf war, saddam was so heavily back by the US that it gave him the boldness to invade kuwait, in 2001 it was a different story

 

If anything, occupation would have been easier after the first Gulf War. Read: easier, not easy.

And the reason for Saddam attacking Kuwait was the fall of the Soviet Union and the power vacuum that that created.

Also, the reasoning behind the US backing of Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war was because we did not want another Iran or a much larger Iran which is what Iran's goal was in that war, to completely crush and dominate Iraq. Remember we hated the Iranian government after the hostage crisis in 1979. Also, the US did not give weapons many to Iraq. They mostly gave other things that have military and civilian uses. In fact the amount of US weapons sold or given to Iraq from 1973-1990 is less than one percent of the total weapons sold (only a few helicopters). The main contributers are:
1) The Soviet Union - 68%
2) France - 12% (mostly in the 70s)
3) China - 11%

 

firstly quoting figure like that are useless becuase there's no way they can be reliable or even reliably verified.

and sure it would be easier, but occupying iraq was never on the agenda, it was simply a case of pushing the iraqis out of kuwait. because it would be such a dramatic shift in policy so soon after the iraq/iran war.

 

[img width=569 height=825]http://www.solport.com/resources/Iraqi%20Weapons.JPG[/img]

Before the troops pulled out of Iraq after the Persian Gulf War it was suggested that we occupy the country rather than pull out. It was Cheney of all people who said that would be a very bad idea.
To quote him:
“For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.†-Dick Cheney, 1991