SkydiveMonkey 0 #1 February 9, 2003 I think this sums it up quite nicely.____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #2 February 9, 2003 cute. and it does pretty much outline the finacial resaons for our concern in the area.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
outofit 0 #3 February 10, 2003 oil is the only reason! why else would the United States give a shit about a wasteland like iraq. It is better to be dead and cool than alive and uncool! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #4 February 10, 2003 Quoteoil is the only reason! why else would the United States give a shit about a wasteland like iraq. OH, I don't know, maybe because he is a mad man and has WMD and supports terrorist organizations and kills his own country men and cabinet members who disagree with him? Maybe? Just a guess(NOT)"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #5 February 10, 2003 It's more about oil to the countries like France and Germany than it is to the U.S. If I recall, the U.S. doesn't get any oil from Iraq. It's going to be very interesting when the truth about the French, German and Chinese involvement with helping Saddam Hussein develop longer range missiles and some of the other technology than he's not allowed to have under the U.N. sanctions, starts to come out. Oh, I almost forgot, what U.S. President transferred authority to the Department of Commerce to decide we should help the Chinese with their long range missle program. You remember don't you?? So why is everyone so surprised that N. Korea and Iraq now posses this technology? The Chinese are our "friends", remember? We would rather engage them than isolate them. That includes sharing our technology. Isn't it interesting that we hear about Saddam violating U.N. sanctions buy purchasing banned technology but we never hear what countries supplied him other that N. Korea. damn pesky little details. Who do you think supplies N. Korea? Ummm I'm thinking maybe ....China and Russia and maybe France and Germany??? And wouldn't those be the same countries who would be embarrassed if we start finding shipping orders that originated in those countries? Oh, I forgot.... China and Russia have been our friends for so long. They have America's best interest at heart. We can trust them can't we? So yes it's all about oil..... to the French, and Germans. Iraq owes Russia and China billions of $$$$$. So yep, its all about oil and money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faber 0 #6 February 10, 2003 Quotewhy else would the United States give a shit about a wasteland like iraq. I think you guys like hairy girls. Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #7 February 10, 2003 Quote maybe because he is a mad man and has WMD and supports terrorist organizations and kills his own country men and cabinet members who disagree with him? Maybe? Just a guess(NOT) You are talking about Bush right? ____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #8 February 10, 2003 QuoteOH, I don't know, maybe because he is a mad man and has WMD and supports terrorist organizations and kills his own country men and cabinet members who disagree with him? Maybe? Just a guess(NOT) What he said.. lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,464 #9 February 10, 2003 >OH, I don't know, maybe because he is a mad man and has WMD So do we. Plus we're the only country who has ever used nukes on civilians. >and supports terrorist organizations So do we; we funded the Mujahideen and helped create Al Quaeda. We are still supporting terrorism. We just call our terrorists freedom fighters. >and kills his own country men So did we; we killed about 250,000 of our own during our civil war. >and cabinet members who disagree with him? That's true, we haven't killed anyone in our government who disagrees with Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,166 #10 February 10, 2003 But Bill, we're us and they're them! It's obvious! Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,464 #11 February 10, 2003 >If I recall, the U.S. doesn't get any oil from Iraq. From ABC News: "Even as Saddam Hussein vows to use his country's oil as a weapon in the Middle East conflict, American companies are buying most of Iraq's U.N.-approved oil exports, oil industry sources tell ABCNEWS.com." http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq010720_cooley.html >Isn't it interesting that we hear about Saddam violating U.N. > sanctions buy purchasing banned technology but we never hear what > countries supplied him other that N. Korea. Yep, many of his biological and chemical weapons came from the US. Even many of the parts he needs to build nuclear weapons. >So yes it's all about oil . . . Oil is definitely one part of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
relyon 0 #12 February 10, 2003 QuotePlus we're the only country who has ever used nukes on civilians. You've made this satement in one form or another in numerous forums for years now. What exactly is your point? Bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,464 #13 February 10, 2003 >You've made this satement in one form or another in numerous > forums for years now. What exactly is your point? If using WMD's on civilians is sufficient reason to make one evil, then we're pretty evil, 350,000 deaths worth evil to be exact. In that case, us calling Hussein evil because he's used WMD's on civilians would be a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. "Oh, but that's different! There was a war, we were really liberating those people and saving millions . . ." I've heard all that, and don't even disagree with it. Nevertheless, we should be careful painting him evil with that particular brush, because others can paint us with it just as easily. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #14 February 10, 2003 [QuoteIf using WMD's on civilians is sufficient reason to make one evil, then we're pretty evil, 350,000 deaths worth evil to be exact. In that case, us calling Hussein evil because he's used WMD's on civilians would be a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Oh, please Bill. To make that kind of a comparison is just ludicrous. We were attacked by the Japanese. Up until that point, we hadn't entered WW2. Using nukes saved millions of lives including mine and probably your grandfather. You compare that to Saddam Hussein aggressivelythreatening Kuwait, Isreal and other countries in the Middle East? Wheres that VX nerva gas, Bill? Why won't he tell us what he did with all the Anthrax? Quote"Oh, but that's different! There was a war, we were really liberating those people and saving millions . . ." No, Bill. We were responding to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and killing 3000 Americans. QuoteI've heard all that, and don't even disagree with it. Nevertheless, we should be careful painting him evil with that particular brush, because others can paint us with it just as easily. I don't have a problem painting him evil. He attacked Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We came to their defense. I don't remember the Saudis' of Kuwaitis' having a problem with us saving their butts. Nor do I remember the French having a problem with us saving them from the Germans. We weren't evil when it was their country on the line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
relyon 0 #15 February 10, 2003 QuoteIf using WMD's on civilians is sufficient reason to make one evil, then we're pretty evil, 350,000 deaths worth evil to be exact. In that case, us calling Hussein evil because he's used WMD's on civilians would be a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. That's a pretty weak argument if that is your only point, IMO. By the same token, if spending billions in US aid around the world is good, then the US has been really good too. Neither Saddam Hussein or Iraq can say the same. Bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,464 #16 February 10, 2003 >By the same token, if spending billions in US aid around the world is > good, then the US has been really good too. Neither Saddam > Hussein or Iraq can say the same. I agree; we're "better" than them in most important aspects. Nevertheless, we are not the innocent force for world peace some would make us out to be. We have blood on our hands too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ifrinn 0 #17 February 10, 2003 It's going to be very interesting when the truth about the French, German and Chinese involvement with helping Saddam Hussein develop longer range missiles and some of the other technology than he's not allowed to have under the U.N. sanctions, starts to come out. Just because they don't agree with Bush, and obviously they got their reasons, they are compared with Hussein, a terrorist. You've got a nice sarcastic tone ... You are not dependent on Iraq's oil, so is Europe. So why are we called terrorist when we try to get a solution, a solution not called war? Nobody is saying there should be done nothing, but war isnt always the only answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fool 0 #18 February 10, 2003 I wasn't going to ge tin on this, but I don't have much to do, so here goes. I honestly beleive that Saddam NEEDS to be taken out of power, and by Saddam, I mean him, his top guys, and especially his two sons. The only way this is actually going to happen, is if people go in there and take him out. Some people will die in the process, and that's truely awful, but look at the facts. He has not met the requirements placed on him for the last decade, and now, even in the face of another war, he still will not cooperate. First he agrees to let the inspectors back, but doesn't fully comply, so they have this big meeting, and nothing happens except they say, ok, well if he doesn't do it this time, we'll do something about it. So the cheif inspectors go back, and he agrees to let the U2 flights, and has granted interviews with scientists. He's stalling like a mother f*cker, and if we wait to long, we're gonna find out why. I, in all reality, think that after the next report from the two cheif inspectors, regardless of what the vote is, Bush and Blair are going to go ahead and move in. I for one, kind of hope they do, but also wish they didn't have to. S.E.X. party #1 "Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "f*#k, what a ride". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #19 February 10, 2003 QuoteOh, please Bill. To make that kind of a comparison is just ludicrous. We were attacked by the Japanese. Up until that point, we hadn't entered WW2. Not officially, but we were arming and supplying the allies, had "unofficial" pilots in China fighting the Japanese and had instituted economic sanctions against Japan which they considered an act of war. We weren't exactly neutral. No matter how many lives it may have saved, it doesn't change the fact that we deliberately targeted civilians for death. Not to mention the bombing of Dresden. The allies killed 500,000 in a single night. There were no military targets in Dresden whatsoever. They made porcelain china plates and had a large artistic population. Because of the lack of military targets, that's where the German's sent 600,000 additional women, children and wounded so that they wouldn't become "collateral damage" when we bombed military targets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ifrinn 0 #20 February 10, 2003 Hussein's dictatorship has to be taken out, thats not the question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,464 #21 February 10, 2003 >No, Bill. We were responding to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and >killing 3000 Americans. Funny, because just a paragraph later you gave an alternate reason for using nukes, one favored by most americans: >Using nukes saved millions of lives including mine and probably your >grandfather. So were we fighting fire with fire, or being humane and saving millions of lives? And do you think that pretty much every country that would consider using WMD's does not have _exactly_ the same reasoning? >Wheres that VX nerva gas, Bill? Why won't he tell us what he did with > all the Anthrax? I have no idea, and neither do you. There are, however, inspectors who are in Iraq who have a better idea. They think things are looking up. From the LA Times: "Mohamed ElBaradei said he was encouraged that the Iraqis were starting to show "the beginning of a change of heart" that — if continued — would achieve disarmament in line with U.N. resolutions without the need for war." I think I will go with their opinion over yours. Nothing personal, they're just in a better position to know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #22 February 10, 2003 Quote >OH, I don't know, maybe because he is a mad man and has WMD So do we. Plus we're the only country who has ever used nukes on civilians. >and supports terrorist organizations So do we; we funded the Mujahideen and helped create Al Quaeda. We are still supporting terrorism. We just call our terrorists freedom fighters. >and kills his own country men So did we; we killed about 250,000 of our own during our civil war. >and cabinet members who disagree with him? That's true, we haven't killed anyone in our government who disagrees with Bush. I refuse to reply to your comments Bill because you are a hopeless liberal who will always find fault in the Administration no matter what the topic. To try and debate this topic with you would be equivelent to a hog trying to read a wrist watch, you just aren't gonna get a answer, and I refuse to waste my time when I can be reading the BOOBIE THREAD"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,464 #23 February 10, 2003 >I refuse to reply to your comments Bill . . . You just did! >because you are a hopeless liberal who will always find fault in the > Administration no matter what the topic. I must be doing something right, then, because liberals call me a greedy conservative. Which is fine with me. > . . .and I refuse to waste my time when I can be reading the > BOOBIE THREAD You go do that! More pictures and less thought required. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LouDiamond 1 #24 February 10, 2003 Quote >I refuse to reply to your comments Bill . . . You just did! >because you are a hopeless liberal who will always find fault in the > Administration no matter what the topic. I must be doing something right, then, because liberals call me a greedy conservative. Which is fine with me. > . . .and I refuse to waste my time when I can be reading the > BOOBIE THREAD You go do that! More pictures and less thought required. For some one who is supposed to be so smart your rhetoric reminds me of the RAINMAN. Either get some new material or hang it up, evidently more than a few people are tired of hearing the same shit from you over and over again. Now excuse me while I go back to the skydiving forum "It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,464 #25 February 10, 2003 Hello again Lou! Another non-reply? >For some one who is supposed to be so smart your rhetoric reminds > me of the RAINMAN. Never said I was smart, although I do get to drive my dad's car. Up and down the driveway. I'm an excellent driver. Definitely an excellent driver. >Either get some new material or hang it up . . . Think I'll keep posting, but thanks for the suggestion. >evidently more than a few people are tired of hearing the same shit > from you over and over again. That's fine; they can talk about boobies with you. Leave the political stuff to the people who can argue politics without getting offended and leaving in a huff and/or starting in with personal attacks. You'll feel less stress that way. >Now excuse me while I go back to the skydiving forum . . . Bye! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
