Originally Posted by BadBenz94
The question you ask confims your point of question regardless of the answer.
If I answer "no", Im confiming that it is not worth the death of our children for oil.
If I answer "yes", Im confirming that it is worth the death of our children for oil.
But in all reality I don't belive that is the core reason as to why we are there. The oil was flowing fine with Sadam at the helm so that reason has no basis. Too, with Sadam ruling the country there was very little risk of Iran trying to overtake Iraq. So I disagree completely with your argument and would not answer that quesition in how you worded it. Make sense now?
My question was very poor in taste and I attempted to state that any statement can be put in its place(of homosexual). It was a very dumb quesiton that kids used to ask each other when I was young because there was no "right" answer. I made the assumption that many on this board has heard that assinine question before.
I was using it unsucessfuly to point out to FTL that there is no "right" answer if you dont agree with his form of questioning.
Well, it would most likely be best if Shane spoke for himself in this matter, but, if GS is correct that Shane's opinion has adopted the point of view that the flow of oil is sacred, FTL's question has a proper context. Namely, how dear is it to you that the oil continue to flow?
Your perspective comes from the belief you noted that oil was not the likely reason for the invasion of Iraq. I tend to think it would have been a much better policy to line up and buy their freaking oil like anyone else than invade and bring about the mess that we have now. However, there has to have been a reason, and WMD wasn't it, and Al-Qaeda links wasn't it, and for the love of Christ, bringing democracy to the poor oppressed Iraqis wasn't it either. So, what was it?
The longer the rationale is held secret by the Bush administration, behind claims of executive privilege and stonewalling Congress, the more sinister the rationale would seem to be. Read Al Gore's book, The Assault On Reason
, and see what you think. Sure seems like dominating the region and taking direct control of the distribution of oil could be the reason, and only for the reasons that seem to make sense to people with the outlook and belief that great wealth deserves great power. Which is contrary to the basic logic behind our Constitution and structure of our government, which was designed to have the Government serve the people that vote. All of them, and equally.
But the confusion with Shane's position lies in how little Shane has fleshed it out at the start of the thread, and, if he could fill in we could stop putting words in his mouth to see if they fit.