Bush asks for patience.....

You mean Faith Based Giveaway. Just another kind of pork.
 
As I recall rather clearly, the reasons for taking out Saddam were based on his history of thumbing his nose at UN resolutions. He was in fact breaking the terms of the cease fire for years, thus reverting to a state of war with the original coalition. The issue of WMD was brought up in the SOTU address, true enough, but the administration's argument did not rest on that. You liberals started re-writing history almost immediately with that. I would have bet good money that WMD would have been found, but alas they were not. It does not change the original reasons for taking action on "regime change" in Iraq (A Clintonian policy adopted in 98 BTW).

Also, let us not diminish the fruits of our labor on this great and historic day in Iraq. Do not dishonor the brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice to see this come about.
 
re-Markable LSC said:
As I recall rather clearly, the reasons for taking out Saddam were based on his history of thumbing his nose at UN resolutions. He was in fact breaking the terms of the cease fire for years, thus reverting to a state of war with the original coalition. The issue of WMD was brought up in the SOTU address, true enough, but the administration's argument did not rest on that. You liberals started re-writing history almost immediately with that. I would have bet good money that WMD would have been found, but alas they were not. It does not change the original reasons for taking action on "regime change" in Iraq (A Clintonian policy adopted in 98 BTW).

Also, let us not diminish the fruits of our labor on this great and historic day in Iraq. Do not dishonor the brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice to see this come about.
Click to expand...

AOI!
 
re-Markable LSC said:
As I recall rather clearly, the reasons for taking out Saddam were based on his history of thumbing his nose at UN resolutions. He was in fact breaking the terms of the cease fire for years
Click to expand...


Ahhh..the old "UN Resolutions" argument. Well Saddam DID ignore resolutions...but then before the US went in, THEY ignored the UN. And if it was such a bad thing to ignore UN Resolutions, perhaps the US should have invaded Israel, since they were ALWAYS in violation of some UN resolution almost all the time, moreso than Iraq. Multiple resolutions at once. For nearly 35 years!!! Oh..and the president of Israel is a convicted war criminal!! I will say it again..the reasons for going to Iraq were dubious at best.......
 
RRocket said:
Ahhh..the old "UN Resolutions" argument.
Click to expand...
The pot calling the kettle black on "old" arguments? :N
 
RRocket said:
Mr. Wilson,

There never were any terrorists in Iraq trying to kill Americans. The Iraqi government themselves never said they wanted to kill Americans. They had no way to even reach America if they felt like killing Americans. No Navy, no Air Force to speak of. There were no WMD (which was the reason George said you guys were going to Iraq, NOT terrorism). Prior to the US being in Iraq, there was no civil unrest, no car bombs, no acts of terrorism. And yes, you have prospered from Iraq oil. All the while, even while Iraq was an enemy of the US, you guys imported, on average 500,000 barrels of oil PER day. Remember, this was even when the US had sanctions on Iraq because they were so evil. Not evil enough to buy oil from though. Since the occupation of Iraq, you guys have imported on average 625,000 barrels per day from Iraq. So please don't tell me oil had nothing to do with it. Iraq was never a threat to the US. EVER. If the US really wanted to invade a country for humanitarian reason, they should have went to Africa, Rwanda, the Congo where MILLIONS of people were murdered. Don't get me wrong..Saddam was an ass, but he was no threat to the US and he wasn't the worst of the worlds tyrants. The US is super friendsly with Saudi Arabia even though they have the worst record human violations in the Middle East. Why? Oil my friend, oil....
Click to expand...


Hey, Michael Moore...why don't you tell the whole story. This 500,000 barrels of oil that we imported was actually bought from the United Nations. This was part of the oil-for-food program...a program that was corrupt and mismanaged by the same people you say we should have begged for permission to go into Iraq from. So...I'll say it again. YES OIL WAS A REASON FOR GOING!!! It is in our national interest to secure a source of petroleum.

Here's some real numbers...

From Air Force Magazine:

The US is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign oil, but the biggest
source is not the Middle East.

In 1996, US wells still produced slightly more than half the oil consumed in the US. In 2001, however, imports accounted for 57 percent of US consumption.

The US last year imported $100 billion worth of crude from 97 nations.

Some 47 percent of imports came from the Americas. In fact, Canada—with
$14.5 billion in sales—was the top foreign supplier of oil to the US last year.
Next came Venezuela, from which the US imported $13.3 billion worth of oil.

Saudi Arabia is the third-largest individual supplier of oil to the US, with sales of $12.5 billion last year. The Middle East supplies less than onequarter
of all imports.

Oil is fungible, and any disruption of world supply anywhere would quickly be felt in the global market. Prices would rise as consumers competed for diminished supplies.

Sources: International Trade Administration, DOC and
Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply
Monthly.
-------------
So, if we were securing oil at a fairly cheap price, and we suddenly decided to rampage through Iraq in a conquest for more oil...why didn't we just go up to Canada. I mean, by your reasoning there should be a coupla thousand troops up there...What's the only difference then...oh yeah, Canada's a friggin democracy... They're part of a civilized world... If we want more oil we just ask...

Wait... I get it... You work for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and you're miffed that Iraq is taking away your business... It all makes sense now.
 
FreeFaller said:
I'm glad the founding fathers didn't have your "patience"...otherwise they would have gone crawing back to King George in 1777.
Click to expand...

Dude, don't even go there. That's apples and watermellons. Fighting for our own freedom and independance on our own turf is nowhere near the same as shoving it down some country's throat on the other side of the globe.
 
FreeFaller said:
Oil is fungible, and any disruption of world supply anywhere would quickly be felt in the global market. Prices would rise as consumers competed for diminished supplies.
Click to expand...
Fungible . . . good word.
 
Were all gonna be screwed by China anyways as far a fuel prices....they will be able to consume the entire OPEC daily production by themselves....
 
RRocket said:
Ahhh..the old "UN Resolutions" argument. Well Saddam DID ignore resolutions...but then before the US went in, THEY ignored the UN. And if it was such a bad thing to ignore UN Resolutions, perhaps the US should have invaded Israel, since they were ALWAYS in violation of some UN resolution almost all the time, moreso than Iraq. Multiple resolutions at once. For nearly 35 years!!! Oh..and the president of Israel is a convicted war criminal!! I will say it again..the reasons for going to Iraq were dubious at best.......
Click to expand...

Well, that is the argument that was used. WMD was a small and rather insignificant aside. I am sure it was aimed at fence sitters, and that backfired. That is why it is now so blown out of proportion. The U.S. acted outside of the UN, we did not defy it directly. Saddam broke the peace, we phucked him up. Now Iraq is better. Israel is our ally. Like it or not, that's world politics.
 
RRocket said:
Were all gonna be screwed by China anyways as far a fuel prices....they will be able to consume the entire OPEC daily production by themselves....
Click to expand...


lol, never gonna happen. Because the mainstay of the chineese country is along the coast...thats multi billions of people...they cant live anywhere else, becasue its all deserts and mountians. They already have public transportation that is efficent enough for them, and if they go about making roads for cars then they will have to cut down on housing, which would not be traded...the chineese auto market WOULD be an awesome one, if they could support the ammt of vehicles. i say they will have no more than 250 million vehicles at their peak. if that. a hell of a lot less than the US.
 
that is tru, i was in car mode...so thats all that came into mind...u r very right in that aspect.
 
barry2952 said:
Car mode?
Click to expand...
yes, i had been working on my car all day, or night or w/e... and thats the only aspect of oil consumption i was thinking of...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 146 (members: 0, guests: 146)
Back
Top