Reason for terrorism, war, 9-11 and justification. - Page 25 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #241 of 252 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 07:12 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
Hussein signed a document in which he acknowledged Kuwaiti claims to territory that he said belonged to Iraq -- an oil filed IIRC. As the French, Germans, and Russians publicly became increasingly strident to lift sanctions and surreptitiously sold him contraband supplies, off of which their cronies and in Chirac's case, personally enriched themselves. Hussein again picked-up his rhetoric in which he stated that the oil rich states should use their oil as a weapon to bring the west to it's knees. That was the same goal he had when he invaded Iran and later, Kuwait. Was he joking? Making idle threats? His own history was complete with examples of why folks should take him seriously.

Note that I wrote that whole paragraph without once making a personal slur about you. In that way, we let the argument speak for itself and not blur it with what we might think about each other personally. See, I don't know you. You probably are kind to pets and handicapped people. None of that has anything to do with this particular topic, either.
Except for the fact that he did not pose a threat to anyone, least of all the US in 2001 or 2003, and the UN weapons inspectors, apparently the only people who knew anything about Saddam's inability to carry out any threats, were gathering the data they needed to make a case for the fact Saddam was a shell of what he had been in the past. Due to economic sanctions and no-fly zones. That greedy Europeans and Texans would go around the international laws establishing those sanctions is their failing, and gives Saddam no extra potency or substantiates any of his saber rattling. You read the Duelfer Report. It clearly acknowledges Saddam had nothing and was doing little more than trying to keep Iran from invading.

Yeah, Saddam was not going to be invited to your dinner table. So what? That did not justify the loss of life and expense of the attack and occupation on Iraq. It especially makes no sense in the context of retaliation for 9-11-2001, preventing another 9-11-2001, or for the path we have gone down to trample America's image by having us engage in torture as part of our policy against Muslims there. In fact, there is nothing about the invasion and subsequent occupation that can justify what we did.

You invoked, and then defended your logic, a completely irrelevant set of circumstances from the past that had no bearing on the situation at hand in 2001 through 2003. Saddam did not pose a threat to the US. We had no business attacking him and turning Iraq into the blood bath we turned it into - the Iraqi people were entirely innocent. Your argument sounds delusional, and that is a sign of psychosis.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #242 of 252 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 11:28 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
Except for the fact that he did not pose a threat to anyone, least of all the US in 2001 or 2003, and the UN weapons inspectors, apparently the only people who knew anything about Saddam's inability to carry out any threats, were gathering the data they needed to make a case for the fact Saddam was a shell of what he had been in the past. Due to economic sanctions and no-fly zones. That greedy Europeans and Texans would go around the international laws establishing those sanctions is their failing, and gives Saddam no extra potency or substantiates any of his saber rattling. You read the Duelfer Report. It clearly acknowledges Saddam had nothing and was doing little more than trying to keep Iran from invading.

Yeah, Saddam was not going to be invited to your dinner table. So what? That did not justify the loss of life and expense of the attack and occupation on Iraq. It especially makes no sense in the context of retaliation for 9-11-2001, preventing another 9-11-2001, or for the path we have gone down to trample America's image by having us engage in torture as part of our policy against Muslims there. In fact, there is nothing about the invasion and subsequent occupation that can justify what we did.

You invoked, and then defended your logic, a completely irrelevant set of circumstances from the past that had no bearing on the situation at hand in 2001 through 2003. Saddam did not pose a threat to the US. We had no business attacking him and turning Iraq into the blood bath we turned it into - the Iraqi people were entirely innocent. Your argument sounds delusional, and that is a sign of psychosis.

Jim
As I have often mentioned, the WMD argument was not sufficient for me to support deposing Hussein. Nor was his flagrant defiance of a dozen or so UN resolutions. I understand why folks may buy into those arguments they simply weren't my reason.

Mine is based solely upon oil. Having KSA, Iraq, the Emirates, Kuwait, and Iran controlling the majority of the planet's proven oil reserves is bad for oil importing countries. Like the USA. Twice in the previous century those countries (and a few others) choked the oil supply to importing countries and caused massive world-wide upheaval.

Hussein had, on numerous occasions before GW I stated that he wanted to control Middle Eastern oil in furtherance of his desire for world domination. After GW I but before GWII Hussein modified his goal from one of personal power over the single most important commodity in the world to embrace an Islamist version of the same goal. Essentially, Hussein got religion at a convenient geopolitical juncture.

Had Hussein been successful in leveraging his personal ambition by using the Islamists dream of a new caliphate (al-Qa'ida (The Base) / World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders / Usama bin Laden), the world today would look far different. Instead of democracy emerging among Arab countries, we would probably be facing world-wide attenuation of the oil supply. Recall that oil is the one factor in distribution of food world-wide for which there is no substitute today.

The risk of not deposing Hussein was to me, greater than the risk associated with deposing Hussein. Even if democracy in Iraq fails and Iraq returns to a dictatorship, the dictatorship itself will have much reduced power over the oil supply formerly controlled by Hussein. Also, a return to dictatorship will result in the complete dissolution of the Iraqi state, not unlike what occurred in Yugoslavia. That's certainly not the optimal solution, but it's still better, in my estimation, than having Hussein in absolute power.

How does it help your argument to say I sound psychotic? Are you an expert in psychoses? Would it help my argument if I called you names and stuck my tongue out at you?

Just stick to the point and be civil so that we both might engage in a mutual exchange of ideas and information. Continuing to insult me is not going to advance your argument just as my calling you names wouldn't advance my argument.

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thatís what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #243 of 252 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 04:59 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
......

How does it help your argument to say I sound psychotic? Are you an expert in psychoses? Would it help my argument if I called you names and stuck my tongue out at you?

Just stick to the point and be civil so that we both might engage in a mutual exchange of ideas and information. Continuing to insult me is not going to advance your argument just as my calling you names wouldn't advance my argument.

B
Give me a break Bot. You know you stick your tongue out at me all the time, so don't pretend like you don't just because you don't post it on You-Tube. But, thanks for trying to answer the basic question, which was how do you get yourself to believe Saddam was any kind of threat to anyone but his own people?

Yes, I believe your invented apparition of the evil oil spirit and your conclusion that it was worth anything to depose him is delusional. We could have put a shitload of solar energy, wind energy, hydro energy and god knows what other kind of electrical energy generating equipment that does not run on oil to use to displace all middle east imported oil for the money we have spent and have yet to spend pursuing your delusions of Saddam's grandeur. He was a shell of a genuine shitbird. There was nothing left to him or his regime that posed a threat to any neighbor, either. And to imagine otherwise and then believe your nightmares is delusional.

Seeing shit that isn't there is a sign of psychotic behavior. Once in a while crazy people turn out to be right, but not this time. But call me names as when you do that it is usually more entertaining than when you try to justify irrational visions of Saddam as Satan.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #244 of 252 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 05:07 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
Give me a break Bot. You know you stick your tongue out at me all the time, so don't pretend like you don't just because you don't post it on You-Tube. But, thanks for trying to answer the basic question, which was how do you get yourself to believe Saddam was any kind of threat to anyone but his own people?

Yes, I believe your invented apparition of the evil oil spirit and your conclusion that it was worth anything to depose him is delusional. We could have put a shitload of solar energy, wind energy, hydro energy and god knows what other kind of electrical energy generating equipment that does not run on oil to use to displace all middle east imported oil for the money we have spent and have yet to spend pursuing your delusions of Saddam's grandeur. He was a shell of a genuine shitbird. There was nothing left to him or his regime that posed a threat to any neighbor, either. And to imagine otherwise and then believe your nightmares is delusional.

Seeing shit that isn't there is a sign of psychotic behavior. Once in a while crazy people turn out to be right, but not this time. But call me names as when you do that it is usually more entertaining than when you try to justify irrational visions of Saddam as Satan.

Jim
You and I have a fundamental difference in assumptions concerning discourse. I believe reasonable people can disagree. You apparently are not so constrained.

That being the case, I see no value in continuing this dialogue.

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thatís what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #245 of 252 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 05:17 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
You and I have a fundamental difference in assumptions concerning discourse. I believe reasonable people can disagree. You apparently are not so constrained.

That being the case, I see no value in continuing this dialogue.

B
You are quite right. We don't see much value in each other's views on this. For example, if Saddam was able to see the power he would gain from such actions, what makes you think others don't have the same views and, certainly the same aspirations? We going to kill them all, and invade all those Arab and Persian countries for oil? Why not make an attempt to get their hands out of our Jockeys and off our balls altogether? If we create the means to free ourselves of our dependence on their oil, wouldn't that be a better solution? It would make the next invasion to kill the next Middle Eastern thug who espouses similar visions of grandeur obsolete. And drive the price of oil down so they didn't have the resources to fund the kinds of things we find ominous and dangerous. But hey we don't agree, and likely never will, so, bye.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #246 of 252 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 05:38 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
You are quite right. We don't see much value in each other's views on this.

1. For example, if Saddam was able to see the power he would gain from such actions, what makes you think others don't have the same views and, certainly the same aspirations?

2. We going to kill them all, and invade all those Arab and Persian countries for oil?

3. Why not make an attempt to get their hands out of our Jockeys and off our balls altogether?

4. If we create the means to free ourselves of our dependence on their oil, wouldn't that be a better solution?

5. It would make the next invasion to kill the next Middle Eastern thug who espouses similar visions of grandeur obsolete. And drive the price of oil down so they didn't have the resources to fund the kinds of things we find ominous and dangerous.

6. But hey we don't agree, and likely never will, so, bye.

Jim
You are half-right because you actually know half of what you think to be true. Here is why: I know, without any doubt in my mind, that I could be wrong. I do not believe that the evidence is unequivocally and irrefutably supportive of what I believe is most likely true. because I don't have absolute certainty, I have to admit that other people may have different views and their views maybe the correct one (or a medley of correct views).

The difficulty is that the evidence is sufficiently ambiguous that I don't believe anybody but a freaking messianic fanatic would commit the masturbation of believing he alone knows the truth.

1. It could happen. The history of that region certainly supports the argument that it will happen again within a generation. But thus far, Hussein was the only one that was head of state in that whole nutty bunch to repeatedly act on his beliefs and ambitions. Osama comes close, but he's the head of state only in his mind. If he's still alive and I am not at all convinced that he is. Alive, Osama is a convenience for this country to keep the GWOT active and it is a convenience for the Islamists as a recruiting tool.

2. Only if they affect our strategic interests.

3. I don't know what that means, but go for it.

4. It sure would. Let's say some genius figures out how to disassemble photosynthesis, effectively taking the Sun as an energy source to produce long-chain hydrocarbons of any preferred length and saturation. How long would it take, with unlimited resources, to bring that technology on-line? 1 year? 5 years? 20 years? Whatever the gap is between discovery and implementation, that gap exposes the planet's vulnerability to hydrocarbon interdiction. Somebody must stand in that gap. If not us, whom would you suggest?

5. Eventually. How long until that happens? 5 years? 20 years? Somebody must stand in that gap. If not us, whom would you suggest?

6. Your choice.

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thatís what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #247 of 252 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 05:51 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce R. View Post
You might want to check your facts, FoTL's response was to post #51 dated 7-11-07, if that isn't trying to resurrect an old argument, what is?

The person that did in fact resurrect the thread had a whole different intention for doing so.
Pay attention. The thread would not have seen the light of day if Dig had not been digging through the litterbox.

Only ONE can resurrect an old thread. Afterward, it is current again. See how simple that is.

Check YOUR writing. YOU said "resurrects a two year old thread...". not "resurrects a two year old argument..." Note the syntactic difference.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #248 of 252 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 05:56 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tizzyfit View Post
What the H*ll does this have to do with this website? You and the rest of the left wing lug nuts need to get a life. Why not take your drivel to the street, like the street people that will listen for a cheap bottle of wine. Get a Life!
We have a life. As for what "this" has to do with this website, figure out what OFF TOPIC means. It should become clear.

Oh, and welcome to BWOT. Be sure to bring facts to your arguments and please wear a cup.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #249 of 252 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 06:04 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
As I have often mentioned, the WMD argument was not sufficient for me to support deposing Hussein. Nor was his flagrant defiance of a dozen or so UN resolutions. I understand why folks may buy into those arguments they simply weren't my reason.

Mine is based solely upon oil. Having KSA, Iraq, the Emirates, Kuwait, and Iran controlling the majority of the planet's proven oil reserves is bad for oil importing countries. Like the USA. Twice in the previous century those countries (and a few others) choked the oil supply to importing countries and caused massive world-wide upheaval.

Hussein had, on numerous occasions before GW I stated that he wanted to control Middle Eastern oil in furtherance of his desire for world domination. After GW I but before GWII Hussein modified his goal from one of personal power over the single most important commodity in the world to embrace an Islamist version of the same goal. Essentially, Hussein got religion at a convenient geopolitical juncture.

Had Hussein been successful in leveraging his personal ambition by using the Islamists dream of a new caliphate (al-Qa'ida (The Base) / World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders / Usama bin Laden), the world today would look far different. Instead of democracy emerging among Arab countries, we would probably be facing world-wide attenuation of the oil supply. Recall that oil is the one factor in distribution of food world-wide for which there is no substitute today.

The risk of not deposing Hussein was to me, greater than the risk associated with deposing Hussein. Even if democracy in Iraq fails and Iraq returns to a dictatorship, the dictatorship itself will have much reduced power over the oil supply formerly controlled by Hussein. Also, a return to dictatorship will result in the complete dissolution of the Iraqi state, not unlike what occurred in Yugoslavia. That's certainly not the optimal solution, but it's still better, in my estimation, than having Hussein in absolute power.

How does it help your argument to say I sound psychotic? Are you an expert in psychoses? Would it help my argument if I called you names and stuck my tongue out at you?

Just stick to the point and be civil so that we both might engage in a mutual exchange of ideas and information. Continuing to insult me is not going to advance your argument just as my calling you names wouldn't advance my argument.

B
So, you justify invasion of a sovereign nation, no matter how much we don't like them, killing a couple of hundred thousand of their civilians, throwing them into civil war...all so we can have cheap oil?

What a shame there wasn't an opportunity, as far back as the 70s to start down a path toward fuel economy and divorcing ourselves from middle east oil. But then again, all that government intrusion on our lives would have been too much against the Libertarian philosophy.

Better to kill brown people for cheap oil.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #250 of 252 (permalink) Old 06-15-2009, 06:33 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
1. So, you justify invasion of a sovereign nation, no matter how much we don't like them, killing a couple of hundred thousand of their civilians, throwing them into civil war...

2. all so we can have cheap oil?

3. What a shame there wasn't an opportunity, as far back as the 70s to start down a path toward fuel economy and divorcing ourselves from middle east oil.

4. But then again, all that government intrusion on our lives would have been too much against the Libertarian philosophy.

Better to kill brown people for cheap oil.
1. I reject your figures concerning Iraqi deaths.

2. Didn't say cheap oil.

3. Too bad.

4. Most of the (small "l") libertarian philosophy I agree with, some I don't. Only a fool or a fanatic buys into everything any given political party or philosophy or politician espouses. I drink no Koolaide, untested.

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thatís what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    War on Terrorism Tax DP Off-Topic 3 02-07-2007 10:51 PM
    As Botnst already admits, here is the real reason for the War in Iraq FeelTheLove Off-Topic 59 01-31-2007 02:51 PM
    The real reason for the Iraq war 420 SE Off-Topic 21 01-25-2006 02:55 PM
    War on Terrorism... firstmb Off-Topic 1 12-23-2005 08:33 PM
    Anti-Iraq War Soldiers form PAC, begin airing new ad against the War FeelTheLove Off-Topic 8 10-15-2004 12:02 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome