But it's not by greenhouse gasses that the USA has control over!
Why for goodness sakes. You want to change lifestyles
convince people they should change. Don't use the old
adage "there ought to be a law". we have enough
laws now and they aren't enforced.
Let's quit passing laws on lifestyles just because, well
just because.
do you provide links when you spout the slogan "we fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here?"
Why should I provide links to what others have said and do ented about the issue of whether the war is for oil? You'll dismiss them as crazy libs, or change the issue, or argue endlessly about some insignificant detail.
I said what I said, and I'll stand by it. If you don't believe it or even want to entertain the possiblity of its truth, I'll not lose any sleep over it.
I just posted a portion of the NIE that supports that. So, yes, I do.
Your turn.
Well, I'm assuming you want to be credible. But, maybe not.
Maybe they are crazy libs. I promise I won't change the subject if you post a credible source that says this is a war for oil.
And, yet, I still find Petraeus more believable. Go figure.
so quoting an estimate of what may happen in the future is a credible link to you. Pardon for me asking, but how could you ever post a link that proves some future event? Do you have some special googling technique that allows you to see into the future? Probably not. The truth is the "over there so we don't over here" argument is just a prediction, a mere guess.
or I post here sporadically in between projects, and I don't really have all the time in the world (as you do apparently) to post treatises on any given subject. I usually just state my opinion and move on.Well, I'm assuming you want to be credible. But, maybe not.
go to www.google.com, and type in the phrase "war for oil" or something similar, and take your pick.Maybe they are crazy libs. I promise I won't change the subject if you post a credible source that says this is a war for oil.
I doubt he has an opinion (or one he could freely share) on the subject of oil.And, yet, I still find Petraeus more believable. Go figure.
That's not a prediction.
Okay. I'll give your unsupported opinion the weight it deserves then.
By the way, I thought you knew I steal my opinions from people who have the time to write and source them so I don't have to. Real time saver.
Sorry, not doing your work for you.
You'd be wrong. He covers the topic in the Hewitt interview.
You forget. Liberals use talking points and code words. When you deviate and talk the truth, or use what sounds like a talking points, but is the reworded truth, they don't understand.
Yep, find all the liberal propaganda over the subject by using liberal code words.
do you just spit out Rush Limbaugh's views all day?
Ah no...
I don't have the time of day to listen to him. Does he say that too?
So, I addressed and refuted every point in your post and all I get is a thumbs up for something everyone already knew?
I dont give 2 s what you two think, the whole situation is the greatest coincidence in the history of mankind.
AQ was responsible for 9/11, flush with support from said tragedy, Bush parlays that tragedy into a witch-hunt for WMDs (jumping logic that much, I dont see how it ever got off the ground). Somehow, some way, Iraq was implicated to be the next enabler in a conspiracy for a hypothetical terrorist plot to procure WMDs.
Three things had to be true for this leap of logic...
1) Iraq must have had WMDs
2) A known terrorist plot to acquire WMDs
3) Iraq had to have been actively seeking to unload said weapons to known terrorists.
Seeing as all three in hindsight are false, this administration has spun the story in so many ways since for any number of reasons, four listed here...
1) To save face. Pride is a .
2) Profit. Nuff said
3) Oil. Nuff said.
4) To spread democracy.
So either our leadership is too prideful to back this issue down gracefully, or we're there for selfish reasons. Reasons that are not selfish on behalf of the American people, but to big corporations heavily invested in the profit from war both financially and politically.
I know you dont believe any of this, Yoni/WC/Ray/et all, and thats completely fine. You'll cite some blog, that cites some intel gained from some interrogation that says some about how we as America must be involved over there, so theyre not over here. Thats just propaganda, something the Democrats will use to their fullest extent post 2008 as well. This isnt party politics, its a power grab. When the Executive powers were awarded to the president during wartime in the past, there have been plenty of Democrats to hold seat and not volunteer those powers back.
So as much as it may pain you know that I am not condemning Repubs or Democrats and that I support neither party, I would think it wise to temper your absolute trust in any one ideal no matter how much it may align with your morals and values.
Because you and I and everyone on this board stands to gain NOTHING from this adventure we're all being dragged into. Peace, security and well-being are not what is at stake. Money, power and influence on the other hand are being strengthened with every press conference, news clip and blog entry.
We here, discussing these issues, are all pretty much the same in terms of station in society, ambition and capability. And this entire fiasco is either the greatest coincidence in the history of man or the most sinister attempt at total and unquestioned control.
I will never trust my government, or any other government, unequivocally in my lifetime. And I am quite surprised how willingly some here seem to be to capitulate to any government under a guise of patriotism and democracy. I question the government at every turn because these bas s have never done anything to prove I should believe otherwise, and that has nothing to do with Red or Blue.
Its about knowing that there is in fact a power structure we as normal individuals are neither apart of or influencing. Its not one man or even cloak and dagger, its right there, sitting on TV, telling us why things are the way they are. They dont have to hide.....we ing elect them.
Okay, class; see what you end up with when you start off with a false premise?
I thought the premise was spot on.
AQ was responsible for 9/11, flush with support from said tragedy, Bush parlays that tragedy into a witch-hunt for WMDs (jumping logic that much, I dont see how it ever got off the ground). Somehow, some way, Iraq was implicated to be the next enabler in a conspiracy for a hypothetical terrorist plot to procure WMDs.
I know you do.
So, tell us, who on the planet believe there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to March 2003? Name one person from the the Bush or Clinton administrations that said -- before the invasion -- there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Fact of the matter is, everyone on the ing planet believed they existed. And, before you start with, "that's because Bush twisted the intelligence," remember that a) an investigation concluded that wasn't the case and b) President Clinton has supported President Bush's claim.
So, yeah, you started with a false premise.
Then, you have have to explain away all the other justifications for invading Iraq contained in the AUMF in Iraq. Because, WMDs weren't the only one. In fact, it wasn't the presence of WMD's that are mentioned but Hussein's continued refusal to comply with several UNSC Resolutions related to WMD programs and developments.
Care to try again?
I don't think most will dispute the fact that Saddam had WMD prior to 2003, but the evidence post 9-11 suggested that Saddam did not have the capability to pose an immediate or imminent threat to the US the way we were led to believe by this administration. We weren't getting the whole picture. We were told "Saddam has WMD," but were not given the ever-important qualifiers to that statement. Qualifiers such as "from 1992," or "but no feasible way to launch an attack on the US," or "no evidence suggesting that Saddam is organizing an attack on the US" were all left out of the discussion by the people who were privvy to that information. So I guess you can't accuse the administration of lying per se, but you can accuse them of only giving us half of the story.
And as far as the refusal on Saddam's part, that's not entirely true either. UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq only months before the invasion and found no nuclear reactors, or any of the neccessary components of said reactors, and were pretty much given freedom to inspect everything they wanted and found nothing. Yes, Saddam kicked them out, but don't pretend that he never allowed the UN to inspect.
Last edited by Oh, Gee!!; 07-20-2007 at 09:47 AM.
Don't recent speeches by the administration suggest that AQ has become stronger in regions outside out of Iraq, and that a future attack against the U.S. is predictable (or in the words of Chertoff, get ready for a "summer spectacular")? Doesn't that counter the prediction that fighting them there means not having to fight them here?
So, you think a general would be told by the pentagon or the administration whether oil was the main cause for war? And if he was told, do you think he'd be free to tell a national audience that secret on the radio? Pardon me for discounting the general's view on the subject.You'd be wrong. He covers the topic in the Hewitt interview.
The global temperature has been steadily increasing over the past 150 or so years.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Of course, we should nothing about it.
Doesn't that predate the Industrial Revolution? Kind of puts the lie to manmade global warming, eh?
Besides, once we get past this whole argument of what's causing it, who says it's bad thing anyway? Longer growing seasons, more vacation spots.
One more thing. Did you know Texas is experiencing the coolest July on record? I knew.
some say the I.R. started in the late 1700s, some say the middle 1800s, some the late 1800s, so I guess it depends on who you believe.
Fair enough.
So, tell me, what happened to the Global Cooling scare of the 70's? Scientists, then, were convinced we'd be freezing by now.
dude, I was just a baby then.
The aerosols actually did provide some cooling in the mid-20th century.
So? You're ready to embrace a concensus that was decades in the making, don't you think you need to be somewhat aware of what was going on in the interim?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
