Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => Politics and Law-Related News => Topic started by: superiorlobe on October 10, 2004, 07:05:46 PM

Title: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: superiorlobe on October 10, 2004, 07:05:46 PM
It is common knowledge that Bush invaded Iraq for oil.  We have spent something like $200 billion on the war so far, which would have bought a lot of oil, but clearly we knew that it made more sense to spend $200 billion invading Iraq for their oil than to just buy it on the market.

But now oil is trading at practically an all time high -- $54 a barrel.

So what happened?  Is it possible that this war was not fought for oil?
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: Everyman on October 10, 2004, 07:08:39 PM
lol at people that actually thought the war was about US control of Iraqi oil.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: cascagrossa on October 10, 2004, 07:12:55 PM
im not saying that i believe the motivation to go to war was for oil, but if you think about it, more expensive oil would only help haliburton and other american companies earn MORE money.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: foxnewssucks on October 10, 2004, 07:13:17 PM
inferiorlobe... the rise in the price of oil right now has nothing to due to the supply of oil coming from the middle east... it has a lot to do with the hurricanes that were in the gulf, refinery problems in the US, and the different types of gasoline different parts of the country use to meet their local standards.

I think that Bush went to war to get back at Hussein for messing with his daddy and also to create some revenue streams for US businesses.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: superiorlobe on October 10, 2004, 07:18:13 PM
Anyone who thinks this war was fought just so Halliburton could make a buck is a cook and a conspiracy theorist.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: Everyman on October 10, 2004, 07:21:49 PM
I think we went to war in order to stop a burgeoning threat, one that (a) had used WMDs before, (b) was making open threats against the US, and (c) was blatantly disregarding the conditions placed upon it after it had invaded another country without provocation less than 15 years earlier.

But that's just me

(good troll thread)
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: AaronJ on October 10, 2004, 07:22:09 PM
im not saying that i believe the motivation to go to war was for oil, but if you think about it, more expensive oil would only help haliburton and other american companies earn MORE money.

I dont know about the Halliburton link but you have to wonder about that.  

Edit: Here is my take

For some damn reason they keep filling the strategic reserve at these obnoxious prices, further driving demand and hence prices up.  I keep wondering if they are going to let out some of that excess reserve out right before the elections to try to push prices down.  I hope they dont because that would be a seriously cheap ploy to improve voter sentiment.  

My spoiled American ass gets pissed off every time I go to the pumps to fill up and I know if prices came down it would improve my near term finances and hence my attitude.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: Koga on October 10, 2004, 07:26:24 PM
Anyone who thinks this war was fought just so Halliburton could make a buck is a cook and a conspiracy theorist.

Political graft was an added benefit, but not the motivation for the war. 
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: cascagrossa on October 10, 2004, 07:49:31 PM
this is a little off topic, but people are just f-ing stupid to continue to buy gas guzzling suv's.  they complain about high gas prices but then go out and buy a f-ing huge truck that get like 12 mpg.

i think suv purchases should be taxed out the f-ing ass.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: superiorlobe on October 10, 2004, 07:50:33 PM
this is a little off topic, but people are just f-ing stupid to continue to buy gas guzzling suv's.  they complain about high gas prices but then go out and buy a f-ing huge truck that get like 12 mpg.

i think suv purchases should be taxed out the f-ing ass.

I agree with you on this.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: AaronJ on October 10, 2004, 07:55:30 PM
this is a little off topic, but people are just f-ing stupid to continue to buy gas guzzling suv's.  they complain about high gas prices but then go out and buy a f-ing huge truck that get like 12 mpg.

i think suv purchases should be taxed out the f-ing ass.

That is certainly the right tool.  If you think there should be less of something, tax the hell out of it.  I think its the right notion rather than taxing gasoline directly, at current levels.  If would certainly force people who are not exorbitantly rich to consider the other things they would have to give up now in order to have their SUV.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: Koga on October 10, 2004, 08:27:48 PM
this is a little off topic, but people are just f-ing stupid to continue to buy gas guzzling suv's.  they complain about high gas prices but then go out and buy a f-ing huge truck that get like 12 mpg.

i think suv purchases should be taxed out the f-ing ass.

And the government gives a tax credit to businesses that purchase SUVs, even if they are intended for personal use.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: amarain on October 13, 2004, 01:25:41 PM
this is a little off topic, but people are just f-ing stupid to continue to buy gas guzzling suv's. they complain about high gas prices but then go out and buy a f-ing huge truck that get like 12 mpg.

i think suv purchases should be taxed out the f-ing ass.

You've got my vote.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: cascagrossa on October 13, 2004, 01:37:41 PM
lol, i dont think i could run for public office.  i couldnt deal with all the bull.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: amarain on October 13, 2004, 01:41:25 PM
cascagrossa, all you need to do to be elected is to run on that platform only. Avoid all other issues, just bring the conversation back to taxing the hell out of SUVs. Between that and making telemarketing executives eligible for the death penalty, you'll have the election all sewn up.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: cascagrossa on October 13, 2004, 01:49:55 PM
but all the huge oil companies and auto manufacturers would throw millions of dollars into a huge smear campaign against me.  im too sensitive for those mean ads.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 13, 2004, 01:59:41 PM
the truth is that buish changed his reasons for goin to war so many times that it is hard to say why we went into iraq.  at first it was wmd, but after it had become appearant there were no WMD he said he would have invaded anyway.  so what gives?

humanitarian reasons? ok then why not send in a couple thousand in to sudan to stop an ongoing genocide?

to strengthen the international community?  wouldnt it have been better to submit to the international will than to over ride it?
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: ComicOzzie on October 24, 2004, 01:13:39 AM
 ???Please explain why SUVs are so horrible.  Is it because they're much more than most people need in a vehicle?  Meaning the only reason they drive them is because they want to; not because they have to?  IOW a luxury.  Therefore burning extra fuel that doesn't have to be burned?

Ozzie
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: cascagrossa on October 24, 2004, 02:08:35 AM
???Please explain why SUVs are so horrible.  Is it because they're much more than most people need in a vehicle?  Meaning the only reason they drive them is because they want to; not because they have to?  IOW a luxury.  Therefore burning extra fuel that doesn't have to be burned?

Ozzie

yes, they are a HUGE waste for the great majority of suv owners.  why does every soccer mom on the block need a gigantic ford excursion to drive to the supermarket?  they female dog and moan about high gas prices but do nothing to contribute to a solution, in fact the contribute to the worsening of the situation.

oil is a scarce resource.  there is absolutely no reason for gas guzzling vehicles to be sold at the rate they are.  it is ridiculous that the citizens of this country lack the social conscience to see that.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: GentleTim on October 24, 2004, 02:57:00 AM
It is common knowledge that Bush invaded Iraq for oil. 


This is an excellent example of why trusting "common knowledge" isn't always a great idea.

But now oil is trading at practically an all time high -- $54 a barrel.

So what happened?  Is it possible that this war was not fought for oil?

What happened is that China's economy started heating up.  Demand for oil is at an all-time high, with no new supply online.  Demand up, supply unchanged = Price increase.

As you point out, if all the Bush administration was interested in was oil, it obviously would have been a lot easier to drop the sanctions and buy his oil than to fight a war for it.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: bluetooth on October 27, 2004, 10:11:15 PM
According to some phychologists' analysis, President Bush had an unhappy childhood as the loser in competing with his daddy for his mother's attention. Daddy was just perfect and too powerful. little Bush's ego was hurt but not dead. In overthrowing Saddam of Iraq, he felt his power because he had done something daddy didn't do.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: defense on October 28, 2004, 07:15:57 PM
I think we went to war in order to stop a burgeoning threat, one that (a) had used WMDs before, (b) was making open threats against the US, and (c) was blatantly disregarding the conditions placed upon it after it had invaded another country without provocation less than 15 years earlier.

But that's just me

(good troll thread)

I agree with you Tom 100%.  Furthermore, I believe that Bush's actions were justifiable based on the premise that he made it clear if Saddam continued to refuse UN weapons inspectors into Iraqi he would force Saddam to comply. 
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: bluetooth on October 29, 2004, 07:01:57 AM
Amarain, the world will be a better place if more people are like you. I can't imagine being an Iraqi. Is there any other people as unfortunate as the Iraqi people?
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: GentleTim on October 29, 2004, 09:40:13 AM
Amarain, the world will be a better place if more people are like you. I can't imagine being an Iraqi. Is there any other people as unfortunate as the Iraqi people?

I would nominate black people living in Dafur.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: rohan on October 29, 2004, 01:22:42 PM
I think we went to war in order to stop a burgeoning threat, one that (a) had used WMDs before, (b) was making open threats against the US, and (c) was blatantly disregarding the conditions placed upon it after it had invaded another country without provocation less than 15 years earlier.

But that's just me

(good troll thread)

A nation that has used WMDs before, made open threats against others, and invades other countries without provocation - who does that sound like? Hmmm  ::)

All this talk about enforcing UN resolutions is so hypocritical. If you want to enforce some UN resolutions, start with Israel, who has been violating them long before Iraq entered the scene.

By the way, at least one study has confirmed my suspicions that Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/index.html.

"While the major causes of death before the invasion were heart attack, stroke, and chronic illness, the risk of dying from violence after the invasion was 58 times higher than in the period before the war."

Solid Post
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 29, 2004, 01:22:59 PM
I think we went to war in order to stop a burgeoning threat, one that (a) had used WMDs before, (b) was making open threats against the US, and (c) was blatantly disregarding the conditions placed upon it after it had invaded another country without provocation less than 15 years earlier.

But that's just me

(good troll thread)

 yes that is just you.  because as i see it although he had used WMD in a WAR he hadnt in a long time, including in 1991 when we were at war with him.  not to mention in 2003 when we invaded his country he still didnt use WMD aganinst us.  what threats did saddam make against the US?  Finally, kuwait was historically a part of Iraq untill the colonial powers divided it up that way.  also, the kuwaitis were slant drilling into his oilfields.

yes saddam was a bad man, but there are many bedsides him and it is not incumbent on the US to police the world alone.  We are going to be in iraq "rebuilding" for a very long time. maybe the next time we decide to invade a counrty we should have much more international cooperation so we arent bearing the brunt of the costs as we are now
Quote
Quote
Quote
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: amarain on October 29, 2004, 03:21:43 PM
Back at you, bluetooth. :)

I just wish people would educate themselves more on what is really happening in the world. Read some relatively unbiased history, or try to get both sides at the very least. Watch or read some non-American news sometime. Sadly, most people barely even watch the evening local news, let alone attempt to get another perspective on things. I think we need to be instilling this kind of open-mindedness and curiosity about the world at an early age. Kids are naturally curious about things, and our current school system does everything possible to squelch that curiosity. And of course, we're seeing the effect of that today.

What's so sad about Iraq is that it was really quite a developed country. It has such a rich history of intellect and achievement, and even women were far more liberated under Saddam than they are currently under our good buddies, the Saudis.

What's even sadder is that GentleTim is right, the blacks in Sudan are at least as bad off as the Iraqis, as are the Palestinians (especially in Gaza), the Angolans, and so many more that never make the evening news (I'm sure cynics among us could come up with a number of probably correct reasons for this).

When was the last time you heard about northern Uganda? Literally tens of thousands of kids have been kidnapped and not only subject to incredible violence, they're forced to become soldiers themselves. Think about how grown men came back from Vietnam horribly damaged, physically and mentally. Now imagine an 8-year-old who went through the same thing. What do you think that's going to do to their society when those kids grow up?  THIS is the kind of humanitarian crisis that the US should be intervening in, not some second-rate dictator who pretends to have WMDs to impress his neighbors.

Sorry for the length, clearly this topic gets me going.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: GentleTim on October 29, 2004, 06:02:16 PM
Back at you, bluetooth. :)

I just wish people would educate themselves more on what is really happening in the world. Read some relatively unbiased history, or try to get both sides at the very least. Watch or read some non-American news sometime. Sadly, most people barely even watch the evening local news, let alone attempt to get another perspective on things. I think we need to be instilling this kind of open-mindedness and curiosity about the world at an early age. Kids are naturally curious about things, and our current school system does everything possible to squelch that curiosity. And of course, we're seeing the effect of that today.

What's so sad about Iraq is that it was really quite a developed country. It has such a rich history of intellect and achievement, and even women were far more liberated under Saddam than they are currently under our good buddies, the Saudis.

What's even sadder is that GentleTim is right, the blacks in Sudan are at least as bad off as the Iraqis, as are the Palestinians (especially in Gaza), the Angolans, and so many more that never make the evening news (I'm sure cynics among us could come up with a number of probably correct reasons for this).

When was the last time you heard about northern Uganda? Literally tens of thousands of kids have been kidnapped and not only subject to incredible violence, they're forced to become soldiers themselves. Think about how grown men came back from Vietnam horribly damaged, physically and mentally. Now imagine an 8-year-old who went through the same thing. What do you think that's going to do to their society when those kids grow up?  THIS is the kind of humanitarian crisis that the US should be intervening in, not some second-rate dictator who pretends to have WMDs to impress his neighbors.

Sorry for the length, clearly this topic gets me going.

I'll back you up on all of those spots (though I suspect we'd have some disagreement about the situation in Palestine), Amarin, but I'm going to have to call you on saying that Iraq was an ok place before we showed up.  Human Rights Watch spoke of genocide when talking about Saddam Hussein, and mass graves are being exhumed even as we sit here typing.  It was an absolutely hellish place, and Iraqis are better off with him gone. 
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 29, 2004, 11:15:31 PM
Back at you, bluetooth. :)

I just wish people would educate themselves more on what is really happening in the world. Read some relatively unbiased history, or try to get both sides at the very least. Watch or read some non-American news sometime. Sadly, most people barely even watch the evening local news, let alone attempt to get another perspective on things. I think we need to be instilling this kind of open-mindedness and curiosity about the world at an early age. Kids are naturally curious about things, and our current school system does everything possible to squelch that curiosity. And of course, we're seeing the effect of that today.

What's so sad about Iraq is that it was really quite a developed country. It has such a rich history of intellect and achievement, and even women were far more liberated under Saddam than they are currently under our good buddies, the Saudis.

What's even sadder is that GentleTim is right, the blacks in Sudan are at least as bad off as the Iraqis, as are the Palestinians (especially in Gaza), the Angolans, and so many more that never make the evening news (I'm sure cynics among us could come up with a number of probably correct reasons for this).

When was the last time you heard about northern Uganda? Literally tens of thousands of kids have been kidnapped and not only subject to incredible violence, they're forced to become soldiers themselves. Think about how grown men came back from Vietnam horribly damaged, physically and mentally. Now imagine an 8-year-old who went through the same thing. What do you think that's going to do to their society when those kids grow up?  THIS is the kind of humanitarian crisis that the US should be intervening in, not some second-rate dictator who pretends to have WMDs to impress his neighbors.

Sorry for the length, clearly this topic gets me going.

I'll back you up on all of those spots (though I suspect we'd have some disagreement about the situation in Palestine), Amarin, but I'm going to have to call you on saying that Iraq was an ok place before we showed up. Human Rights Watch spoke of genocide when talking about Saddam Hussein, and mass graves are being exhumed even as we sit here typing. It was an absolutely hellish place, and Iraqis are better off with him gone.

some people forget about the "kurds" this culture is struggling for existance in many parts of the indus valley...iraq...iran...turkey ...caucasia...this culture is happy that hussain's children are dead...
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 30, 2004, 12:11:57 AM
some people forget about the "kurds" this culture is struggling for existance in many parts of the indus valley...iraq...iran...turkey ...caucasia...this culture is happy that hussain's children are dead...

Also true. They're the ones that Saddam gassed (with American money and tacit blessing). I believe they are the largest ethnic group in the world without a state.

well, let's just say that the credits in your pocket today might have once been in hussain's children's pockets at one time...you didn't pay him...did you? but it wasn't american money it was iraqi dinars and aye believe the hussain's had their own money...remember the palaces?

but they are happy hussain's children are dead...because money did not kill them...people killed them...and those people are dead and others have been called out.
the tacit blessing is from the dead kurds' families and their slaughtered children.

ask some of them.  you seem intelligent...find out about their history.

and the kurds are a culture of people...please let's not get bogged down with the "ethnicity" label.  200 or 300 yrs from now...if the human race is still around...they will look back at us and say that our labels...like "ethnicity" were a "cognitive delusion of our era ."
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 30, 2004, 12:00:56 PM
some people forget about the "kurds" this culture is struggling for existance in many parts of the indus valley...iraq...iran...turkey ...caucasia...this culture is happy that hussain's children are dead...

Also true. They're the ones that Saddam gassed (with American money and tacit blessing). I believe they are the largest ethnic group in the world without a state.

well, let's just say that the credits in your pocket today might have once been in hussain's children's pockets at one time...you didn't pay him...did you? but it wasn't american money it was iraqi dinars and aye believe the hussain's had their own money...remember the palaces?

but they are happy hussain's children are dead...because money did not kill them...people killed them...and those people are dead and others have been called out.
the tacit blessing is from the dead kurds' families and their slaughtered children.

ask some of them.  you seem intelligent...find out about their history.

and the kurds are a culture of people...please let's not get bogged down with the "ethnicity" label.  200 or 300 yrs from now...if the human race is still around...they will look back at us and say that our labels...like "ethnicity" were a "cognitive delusion of our era ."

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'll give you the ethnicity part - I couldn't think of a better word, because culture is a bit inadequate. But what are you talking about it was iraqi dinars and the tacit blessing is from the dead kurds' families?? ???
My point is that at the time that Saddam murdered the Kurds in that one particular horrible gas attack, he was an ally of the US which was supplying him with money and support. I can't figure out if you understood me and are deliberately trying to make some other point or if you didn't understand what I meant.

you did not need to use the words in parenthesis. when you wrote what you wrote...that was my point. american money and support did not kill the kurds.

what was in the parenthesis was your point...so...i think...
you are connecting usa=money to iraq=spent on chemicals=to kill kurds..ergo what?

it doesn't matter who his ally was when he chose to slaughter people. the two have nothing to do with each other. iraq had its own agenda...and part of that was getting rid of the kurds.  he could kill whomever he wanted and did. he didn't need u.s. money to do that.  he used his own money...dinars.

hussain and his children had money and chemicals and bullets for that matter...they decide who they were going to murder with THEIR OWN MONEY AND use their OWN HANDS and OWN GUNS to do it.

an analogy...jews in germany gave money to support their own country before hitler came a long and continued to do so as he rose to power...hitler used the money the german government had and others to create a military machine then he murdered many of those jews...so, just because at the time they had supported their government doesn't have anything to do with the fact that hitler and his regime...by their own hand slaughtered people... make sense?
i'm sure they didn't support hitler and his use of resources to kill themselves...that's what he and his military regime decided.

the us and japan and england and france and germany and russia and saudi arabia and iran and turkey and togo and tunisia gave their tacit blessing as well...because none of those countries tried to help the kurds.  one could say that. no?

husseins children are dead...the dead kurds silent prayer was answered.

clearer?

px.o rasta

Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: trogdor on October 30, 2004, 02:45:52 PM
this was clearly not a humanitarian war to save the people from death camps in iraq.  look at sudan now.  where is the u.s. in that mess?  regardless of whether or not saddam was a good or bad ruler who caused pain and suffering, the fact that the american people were given unreliable evidence to justify a war that we now realize was bull is something that the bush administration must be held accountable for.  what burns me most about it is that bush, cheney, rumsfield, etc. all act like they did nothing wrong.  at least take some blame.

it's pretty clear that the strategy is to deny all responsibility.  rove has done an excellent job of pushing the "no apologies approach".  it works because a majority of america doesn't have a clue about what's going on in the world.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: Koga on October 30, 2004, 03:30:46 PM

Anyway, Turkey has also horribly mistreated the Kurds as well. Iraq is not alone in that.

Sadam gassed the Kurds.  Turkey did nothing even vaguely resembling that.

The PKK is responsible for more Kurdish deaths than the Turkey army.  They ruthlessly killed any Kurd which they felt aided Turkey.  And most of the Kurdish deaths caused by Turkey were soldiers.

Most of Turkeys mistreatment of the Kurds is related to Kurdish desire to preserve their cultural traditions.  Turkey maintains that there is really no such thing as a Kurd--that the people who call themselves Kurds are really 'Mountain Turks'.  Using this logic, Turkey refuses to allow the Kurds to study their language or practice their culture, since any such expression undermines the Turkish government's assertion that everyone in Turkey is Turkish. 
It's interesting that while Russia and Israel take great pains to distinguish themselves form the people they oppress, Turkey pretends like the people they oppress are just confused Turks.


I think that this administration will ultimately spin the invasion as an action necessary to remove a war criminal with a callous disregard for human rights.  Of course by those standards, we should invade Israel.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: trogdor on October 30, 2004, 03:33:19 PM

Quote
I think that this administration will ultimately spin the invasion as an action necessary to remove a war criminal with a callous disregard for human rights.  Of course by those standards, we should invade Israel.
Quote

israel and about a 100 other nations on the planet.  but what better way to alleviate pain and suffering than a preemptive war?!
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: Koga on October 30, 2004, 03:45:44 PM

And I really don't know enough about the situation to discuss it intelligently, so I'll just admit that my knowledge is limited and leave it at that.

If only more people were as wise as you are, the world would be a much better place. :)
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 31, 2004, 01:50:03 AM
israel cannot be reasonably compared to iraq.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: amarain on October 31, 2004, 06:30:04 AM
israel cannot be reasonably compared to iraq.

I agree, but what do you mean? In what way are you talking about comparing them?
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: TrojanChispas on October 31, 2004, 11:45:15 AM
as far as human rights abuses
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 31, 2004, 08:15:02 PM
OK, bluewarrior, I think I see what you mean now. But I disagree with you in that I believe sending military aid to a country means that you are condoning its military practices. If I'm beating up an guy, and you give me some money and say, "you are my friend", you are basically supporting what I'm doing, indirectly. Similarly, the US (and all the other countries who were sending Saddam military aid at the time) were supporting the slaughter of the Kurds, indirectly. Who knows where the exact funds for the gas came from? Just because the dollars got converted to dinars at the border means nothing.

Anyway, Turkey has also horribly mistreated the Kurds as well. Iraq is not alone in that.

military support...(gov. wise) it was to beat back along the eastern front...for one...yes.
military support ...to protect and patrol...your own land.

hussain and his children used military support...to murder people in their own country.
i'm not sure they used the military to do this but it's true...bullets were used to kill kurds...and gas. "imagine troops sent into the kurds village and executing them."
did america pay for that? absolutly not. and...maybe...if you don't look at the human element.  just because aye give a friend a gun for protection doesn't mean aye support his shooting spree.

your example...aye don't want to comment on that.

and by the way the word "indirectly" in this "global world" is passe.

pardon the fr%$ch. and aye am six degrees of separation from the pope...know what i mean?

my take is cutthroat: he s.did it h.he pays....


twist that however you like.

the govs.of iran, turkey, russia, have clandestinely recognized the kurds.
but they(kurds) and others...are truly happy that mr. hussain's children are passe.
aye do not excuse my french ;)you must look at this from all aspects of the coin...it is possible for a coin to land on its edge...and this comment is only for effect it has no bearing on what is discussed but that there is another alternative.

so, ms. amarain, why so down on the u.s.? there ARE democrats in control since 2000 as well, ya know.  don't be too worried.



Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: Koga on October 31, 2004, 08:22:26 PM
israel cannot be reasonably compared to iraq.

Israeli human rights violations are nowhere near as extreme as those under Sadaam.  I doubt that anyone would say otherwise.  But while the brutality in Iraq was the work of one despotic regime, Israel's brutality is the work of many different democratically elected leaders(although some Israeli PMs have been serious about ending human rights violations). 
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on October 31, 2004, 08:37:25 PM
israel cannot be reasonably compared to iraq.

Israeli human rights violations are nowhere near as extreme as those under Sadaam. I doubt that anyone would say otherwise. But while the brutality in Iraq was the work of one despotic regime, Israel's brutality is the work of many different democratically elected leaders(although some Israeli PMs have been serious about ending human rights violations).


hmm...there have been human rights violations since the beginning of time...
extreme or not so extreme...its all extreme.

there are places on earth where there are just flat out NO human rights.

so..mention israel mention damascus mention belfast mention belgrade mention bagdad mention saigon...mention new york city.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: amarain on October 31, 2004, 09:21:11 PM
so, ms. amarain, why so down on the u.s.? there ARE democrats in control since 2000 as well, ya know.  don't be too worried.
I'm afraid your posts are a bit too disjointed for me to follow at the moment (really tired), but I thought I'd address this one part since it was specifically directed towards me. I'm not really down on the US specifically - in fact, I feel pretty damn lucky to be an American and I support my country in general. but there are some US policies that I cannot condone, and I feel it's my responsibility to at least be somewhat knowledgable about them and speak out when I don't agree. That's what democracy is all about (yes, I know technically it's not a democracy, blah blah). I'm neither a Republican nor Democrat, so I'm kind of confused by that remark too. I have certain ideas and believe in certain principles, so I support politicans who act in accordance with my beliefs. Their party affiliation is unimportant to me.

Just because there have been human rights violations since the beginning of time doesn't mean they're OK. Slavery has been around a long time, but it doesn't mean it's a good thing. I don't think it's really fair to compare New York City to either Baghdad or Belgrade. Clearly there are some places where human rights violations are worse than others.

Koga, I totally agree with you, btw.
Title: Re: no blood for oil at $54 per barrel
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on November 01, 2004, 01:57:23 PM
so, ms. amarain, why so down on the u.s.? there ARE democrats in control since 2000 as well, ya know.  don't be too worried.
I'm afraid your posts are a bit too disjointed for me to follow at the moment (really tired), but I thought I'd address this one part since it was specifically directed towards me. I'm not really down on the US specifically - in fact, I feel pretty damn lucky to be an American and I support my country in general. but there are some US policies that I cannot condone, and I feel it's my responsibility to at least be somewhat knowledgable about them and speak out when I don't agree. That's what democracy is all about (yes, I know technically it's not a democracy, blah blah). I'm neither a Republican nor Democrat, so I'm kind of confused by that remark too. I have certain ideas and believe in certain principles, so I support politicans who act in accordance with my beliefs. Their party affiliation is unimportant to me.

Just because there have been human rights violations since the beginning of time doesn't mean they're OK. Slavery has been around a long time, but it doesn't mean it's a good thing. I don't think it's really fair to compare New York City to either Baghdad or Belgrade. Clearly there are some places where human rights violations are worse than others.

Koga, I totally agree with you, btw.

ms. amarain, aye can tell you are not down on usa but people have been bringing in usa policy whenever there is some action in the world. and understandably so...but when aye'm talking about the murder of the kurds...please lets not slide them to the side and talk about the usa policy.


i'll talk later