|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Terrorism in London | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
What does the price of oil have to do with the motives of the administration in the Iraq invasion? First of all, the aftermath of the invasion is nothing like what the administration thought. If the invasion has anything to do with the price of oil, then it is a result of their plans having gone badly awry. Second, I didn't say that the war was about the price of oil; it is, partly, on the control of oil.
And the oil money has been pretty well mismanaged by the US. I should think that those who thought the UN oil-for-food program was corrupt should be looking into this as well. And the Iraq invasion couldn't possible been about 9/11. As holmes has pointed out to you, it is public record that the Bush administration had Iraq in its sights well before 9/11. Edited to add:
quote: And yet you accept a world-wide conspiracy to impose Islam on the West with even less evidence. This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 08-Jul-2005 10:38 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
And well you should laugh, Meeb. I did a google search on Bat Ye'or. A wikipedia article claims that some consider her to be a legitimate scholar; she may be, but the only sites that seemed to mention her were retail sites selling her books, anti-Muslim sites, and some Jewish sites which I didn't check close enough to judge.
It appears that Bat Ye'or claims that Europe is being over-run by Arabs and Islamists, and that their foreign policy is being influenced by a deliberate program to link Europe with the Arab world. My "crank alarm" is going off.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
So you completely avoid the issue as usual. You side step it with name calling. No, I very clearly suggested you go back to the threads where you first posted the list and I replied to you and the you disappeared, so you can address what I already have to say about it. This is not just off topic but already been done.
The list of Democratic quotes is only a partial list. Anybody can easily find a similar list of Republicans quotes and they all say the same essential thing Holmes. The thing is the threads are still there and my posts are still there so your stating here that I ran away before doesn't mean a thing to me. Maybe I'll refresh your memory about the kinds of things I said: 1) I'm not a democrat and so a list of democrats saying stuff does not mean anything. 2) The quotes are generally vague and by politicians, some of whom were errant and mislead by the intel that Bush was producing, so they do not mean anything. 3) There was worldwide criticism to our position, as well as from some within the ranks of our own intel community. Your quoting from people that were supportive of a certain position as if to suggest there were no people that thought otherwise is blatant propagandizing. Any of this ring a bell? I did not claim that no one agreed with the false data and analyses, nor made comments that we should be wary that Iraq not be allowed to become a threat. I said there was common knowledge regarding Iraq and there was. Common consent was that its WMD capability was highly unknown, but thought highly degraded. Its military posed no threat. It was unlikely to provoke a fight with the US, and especially not to pair with AQ. The first was stated by Rice and Powell in those quotes I gave you in return and I see you still refuse to deal with. The last two were stated in papers by the CIA before the Iraq War, as well as other intel agencies. All of this has been compiled within the Congressional reports on Iraq intel failures. The key being that the real intel was available, but those supporting Bush policy focused only on dubious intel to the exclusion of valid intel.
He may not have developed WMD’s in 2002 or this year or 5 years from now, but he would have done it sooner or later, and HE WOULD HAVE USED THEM. Cue menacing soundtrack. Man you are straight out of vaudeville.
And as I have reminded you before, your signature is most appropriate to your posts. I was thinking the same thing regarding you and your avatar. But seriously, my sig is there to try and remind myself, that there sometimes is no chance of making a point with some people. You are right I suppose that it is appropriate to my posts and I should realize it. No matter how hard I try I appear to have no power to reason away what you believe. This message has been edited by holmes, 07-08-2005 06:39 PM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 Where does that suggest invading Iraq or that Iraq is a sponsor of Islamic Terrorism? After we deal with this first quote we will look at each succeeding quote to see if they actually support your assertions. This message has been edited by jar, 07-08-2005 05:47 PM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6494 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
I can't believe you actually accept that iranian "reformers" were elected to anything. The mullahs choose who may run in the elections, and they reject any true reformers. And I can't believe you really believe that reformers run free throughout the islamic world, speaking openly without retribution. The person of whom you speak why was killed is the rule, not the exception. Even a cursory google search will confirm this.
I'd suggest you read Amir tehari, perhaps the most prolific Muslim writer on the islamic world - where he writes, safely, from britain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6494 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
truly, you are in denial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6494 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
Of course they can manage some terrorist attacks, they being much easier to carry out in Europe because so many islamists live there and cooperate as al qaeda cells. But were it not for iraq, there would be many more than the occasional attack.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6494 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
Clinton also had Iraq and Hussein in his sights. The US has not gained any control over oil and the oil markets. Were that the case, and were that the motive, they'd have kept the price under control too. The best policy the US could have carried out, if it was about oil, was to lift sanctions against Hussein and let iraqi oil flow freely and competitively in the world market.
And did you know that the US buys little oil from the ME? Canada is the biggest supplier, followed by, I think, Mexico and venezuela.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I've never seen owning guns as a civil freedom. You don't think owning things is a civil freedom?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But all those people turned out to be wrong.
What's the point of a list of quotes from people that were wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3946 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Where does that suggest invading Iraq or that Iraq is a sponsor of Islamic Terrorism? One way or the other implies that we will use whatever means necessary to see to it that Sadaam is denied the capacity to develop WMD’s. The use of the term That is our bottom line, implies a summation of all relevant facts and in the final analysis, Sadaam must be stopped. Clinton is saying Sadaam will be prevented from developing WMD’s, and it will happen one way or another. If one approach is appeasement and containment, then another course is military action. One way or the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
sorry but you still didn't answer my question.
Where does that show any connection with Terrorism? While invasion is always an option, so far there is nothing in that quote to suggest it's needed. Are you ready to agree this one shows no support that Iraq was involved in terrorism or that invasion was needed? If so we can move on to the next quote. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
And I can't believe that you know nothing about Iran. Khatami was constantly fighting against the hard-line clerics to get his reforms passed. His legislative agenda was constantly vetoed by the Revolutionary Council. Politicians supporting him were jailed, newspapers supporting him and his reforms were shut down, political activists supporting him and his re-election were beaten up by thugs loyal to the hard-liners or jailed or both.
Are you so convinced that before 9/11 that there was no dissent in any Islamic country that you are now going to deny the obvious?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
So you have identified a alternate reason why there have been no attacks in the US since the Iraq invasion. It is harder to get to the US, and there is a much smaller Arab community in which to "blend in" and hide. This makes sense -- Islamic terrorism was not a daily occurrence in the US that only stopped when Hussein was removed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Again, I never said prices were reason for the invasion. Why would you think that control means low prices? Besides, even if it did, the higher prices would be sign that the invasion destabilized the oil markets unintentionallly.
And I never said that the invasion was to supply the US oil market. It was to be able to exert control over the international oil market. To be able to bring pressure on other countries which need oil. How would lifting sanctions against Hussein have aided the US in being able to exert control over oil production? Hussein was implementing an oil production policy that was in Iraq's interests (or at least in his vision of Iraq's interests), not in the interests in the US.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024