A Taste of Terrorism – Crudely Bitter

First, if Bush-Cheney lied as you constantly whine they do, then why haven't they been removed from office. Lying to the congress is an impeachable offense and if your accusation were true, both would be gone. Yet they remain in office. HMMM

The simple fact is they presented their case to Congress and Congress, at an over 70% rate, approved the actions OUR President undertook. Just because polls changed doesn't change the facts.

As for the UAE, Jordan, Qatar and other moderate countries, it is they who want us to stay in Iraq. They do not want to see us abandon them the way we did the South Vietnamese because they don't want to fall to the same fate in a civil war and they know that if we do not protect them, no one will. They also realize, unlike you and your kind, that radical Islamist with that much power and control of such a large portion of the worlds readily available oil supply is not a good thing.

I'm not digging anything deeper. Congress had the discussion about the invasion of Iraq and like it or not, oil was brought up.

Prove it.

Read the resolution. The use of force in Iraq was authorized in the case that WMD's, or evidence of them, were discovered discovered in Iraq.

I do not remember oil being any part of it.

As for the UAE, Jordan, Qatar and other moderate countries,

You do not know what the word "moderate" means. In all of those countries, you can get in serious trouble for breaking "religious" laws.

TerryRC wrote:I'm not digging anything deeper. Congress had the discussion about the invasion of Iraq and like it or not, oil was brought up.

Prove it.

Read the resolution. The use of force in Iraq was authorized in the case that WMD's, or evidence of them, were discovered discovered in Iraq.

I do not remember oil being any part of it.

As for the UAE, Jordan, Qatar and other moderate countries,

You do not know what the word "moderate" means. In all of those countries, you can get in serious trouble for breaking "religious" laws.

Prove Congress didn't have the discussion.

And I know exactly what moderate means and as far as Islam goes, the countries I listed are considered moderate.

Aaron wrote:First, if Bush-Cheney lied as you constantly whine they do, then why haven't they been removed from office. Lying to the congress is an impeachable offense and if your accusation were true, both would be gone. Yet they remain in office. HMMM.

Impeachment is a political process. Congress blew its credibility re: impeachments with Clinton. Congress no longer has the balls to impeach an errant pissant.

The simple fact is they presented their case to Congress and Congress, at an over 70% rate, approved the actions OUR President undertook. Just because polls changed doesn't change the facts.

Right. And the fact is that Bish-Cheney lied about going to war in Iraq. All the polls and all the denials in the world won't change that.

As for the UAE, Jordan, Qatar and other moderate countries, it is they who want us to stay in Iraq. They do not want to see us abandon them the way we did the South Vietnamese because they don't want to fall to the same fate in a civil war and they know that if we do not protect them, no one will. They also realize, unlike you and your kind, that radical Islamist with that much power and control of such a large portion of the worlds readily available oil supply is not a good thing.

But again, the Cheney-Bush administration said 5 years ago and still says that it is not about oil. What do you know that they don't?

You keep saying they've lied for years but you've offered no proof.

Aaron wrote:You keep saying they've lied for years but you've offered no proof.

If it's as much about oil as you keep insisting, and the Cheney-Bush administratiion keeps saying that it is not about oil, then, well ............................. , what would you call it?

I've never said the invasion was about oil. That's a misleading statement on your part.

I've said we have to stay and protect 'vital interest' in Iraq. I've heard every major candidate, the Iraq study group and GWB use those same words. I ask last week but no one answered. Besides oil, what vital interest do we have in Iraq?

Aaron wrote:I've never said the invasion was about oil. That's a misleading statement on your part.

I've said we have to stay and protect 'vital interest' in Iraq. I've heard every major candidate, the Iraq study group and GWB use those same words. I ask last week but no one answered. Besides oil, what vital interest do we have in Iraq?

Bush now says that the interest in Iraq is "fighting terrorism", or winning the "War on Terror".

So the invasion of Iraq 5 years ago was not about oil, but the continuing military occupation or semi-occupation today is?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I've never said the invasion was about oil. That's a misleading statement on your part.

I've said we have to stay and protect 'vital interest' in Iraq. I've heard every major candidate, the Iraq study group and GWB use those same words. I ask last week but no one answered. Besides oil, what vital interest do we have in Iraq?

Bush now says that the interest in Iraq is "fighting terrorism", or winning the "War on Terror".

So the invasion of Iraq 5 years ago was not about oil, but the continuing military occupation or semi-occupation today is?

I've given you my opinion. If you President Bush's, I suggest you write to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC. You can call 202-456-1111. I doubt they'll patch you through but they may take a message.

And for kicks and giggles, do you know of any other vital interest in Iraq other then oil?

Aaron wrote:And for kicks and giggles, do you know of any other vital interest in Iraq other then oil?

Until you define what is meant by "vital interest", I'm not taking as Gospel the premise of your question- that Iraqi oil is of "vital interest" to America.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:And for kicks and giggles, do you know of any other vital interest in Iraq other then oil?

Until you define what is meant by "vital interest", I'm not taking as Gospel the premise of your question- that Iraqi oil is of "vital interest" to America.

It is Iraqi oil, not American oil. We are not entitled to it, period.

ziggy wrote:
So Sam has finally learned a new word- "pierty". Hurray! He started using it earlier this week on someone else. Like a little boy who just discovered his penis, we can expect Sam to play with his new word often.

HA, ...... Ziggy, I was learning that word along with many others ........ while you were engrossed in playing with your penis. And that is the reason I became educated .......... and the reason you had to get married and failed to get educated.

ziggy wrote:

(Sam) The decisions were made concerning the 9-11 hijackers and the invasion of Iraq ....... and it will do no one any good or change anything by explaining why said decisions were made.

Yeah, that is the same horse sh!t the Vietnam hawks' put forth about Vietnam- that those who questioned the mendacious underpennings of that war, too, were just piert asses to be ignored.

Only when those choppers frantically lifted off the roof of the American embassy in Saigon in 1975 did it dawn on most Americans that we were right- that Joihnson and McNamara and Nixon had lied to America about Vietnam for a whole goddamn decade.

And it will eventually happen about the same way in Iraq- maybe next year, or the year after, or ten years from now. But sooner or later Bush-Cheney will join the ranks of Johnson and McNamara- going down in history as the piertest of the piert, lying, jackass managers of an unnecessary war built on a foundation of bricks made of but paper mache, of but one goddamn lie after another.

Same old same old.

Yup, YADA, YADA, YADA ........... Zigster.

You are always reminiscing about what you think you last seen of the north end of a south bound goose. Why you can swear you got an eye full, ...... RIGHT?



.

Stephanie wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:And for kicks and giggles, do you know of any other vital interest in Iraq other then oil?

Until you define what is meant by "vital interest", I'm not taking as Gospel the premise of your question- that Iraqi oil is of "vital interest" to America.

It is Iraqi oil, not American oil. We are not entitled to it, period.

What you don't understand is that we are the ones that created the instability. It is our responsible to now bring stability to Iraq. I'm sorry that's beyond you but it does not change the facts.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:And for kicks and giggles, do you know of any other vital interest in Iraq other then oil?

Until you define what is meant by "vital interest", I'm not taking as Gospel the premise of your question- that Iraqi oil is of "vital interest" to America.

I stopped being suprised when you've topped yourself with stupid comments and statements.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:And for kicks and giggles, do you know of any other vital interest in Iraq other then oil?

Until you define what is meant by "vital interest", I'm not taking as Gospel the premise of your question- that Iraqi oil is of "vital interest" to America.

I stopped being suprised when you've topped yourself with stupid comments and statements.

You are the one who suggests that Iraqi oil is a "vital interest" for America.

Don't blame Ziggy for you own "stupid comments and statements".

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:And for kicks and giggles, do you know of any other vital interest in Iraq other then oil?

Until you define what is meant by "vital interest", I'm not taking as Gospel the premise of your question- that Iraqi oil is of "vital interest" to America.

I stopped being suprised when you've topped yourself with stupid comments and statements.

You are the one who suggests that Iraqi oil is a "vital interest" for America.

Don't blame Ziggy for you own "stupid comments and statements".

So you don't believe Iraqi oil is of 'vital interest' to the US?

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Until you define what is meant by "vital interest", I'm not taking as Gospel the premise of your question- that Iraqi oil is of "vital interest" to America.

I stopped being suprised when you've topped yourself with stupid comments and statements.

You are the one who suggests that Iraqi oil is a "vital interest" for America.

Don't blame Ziggy for you own "stupid comments and statements".

So you don't believe Iraqi oil is of 'vital interest' to the US?

Again, it depends on what is meant by "vital interest". If that means that for Iraqi oil that it's OK to start a war under false pretenses (WMDs) but when it's really about oil, but while denying and continuing to deny that it's about oil, then no, I do not think that it is that much of a "vital interest". It we are going to trade blood for oil, then we need to have the public debate be about how much American blood and how much Iraqi blood is a barrell of Iraqi oil worth.

If anyone in West Virginia can figure out what Ziggy is trying to prove ……. or justify, ……. I wish they would tell him …………. because I’m damn sure he doesn’t know himself. To wit:

ziggy wrote:If it's as much about oil as you keep insisting, and the Cheney-Bush administratiion keeps saying that it is not about oil, then, well ............................. , what would you call it?

“YES”, Aaron says it is about oil.

“YES”, Cheney-Bush administration says it is not about oil.

Zigster, what the hell is your problem, ….. Aaron told you what he would “call it”? Are you on meth or what?

ziggy wrote:Bush now says that the interest in Iraq is "fighting terrorism", or winning the "War on Terror".

So the invasion of Iraq 5 years ago was not about oil, but the continuing military occupation or semi-occupation today is?

Zigster, Bush said it wasn’t about oil, so what the hell is your problem.

Zigster, Bush said the continuing military occupation or semi-occupation is about "fighting terrorism", so what the hell is your problem?

Zigster, Aaron implied the continuing military occupation or semi-occupation is about protecting our "vital interests", ….. so what the hell is your problem?

Ziggy, Aaron is one person, Bush is another person, ....... they are saying different things.

Zigster, it is apparent that you can’t dissimilate between “what Bush says” …… and “what Aaron says”, ………. are you burnt out on meth or what?

ziggy wrote:Until you define what is meant by "vital interest", I'm not taking as Gospel the premise of your question- that Iraqi oil is of "vital interest" to America.

Ziggy, are you “burnt out” that severely, …… that someone has to define the term "vital interest" for/to you?

Zigster, bout everyone in WV but you knows what it means ……. so maybe you ought to try a Google search to solve your problem.

ziggy wrote:You are the one who suggests that Iraqi oil is a "vital interest" for America.

Don't blame Ziggy for you own "stupid comments and statements".

Zigster, proof positive, you really don’t know what the term "vital interest" means.

Here, try to comprehend this statement:

“The term "vital interest" is a subjective analysis of America's needs.”

Zigster, millions of Americans think and/or believe we need more oil, even Iraqi oil. How’s come you don’t think we do?

ziggy wrote:Again, it depends on what is meant by "vital interest". If that means that for Iraqi oil that it's OK to start a war under false pretenses (WMDs) but when it's really about oil, but while denying and continuing to deny that it's about oil, then no, I do not think that it is that much of a "vital interest". It we are going to trade blood for oil, then we need to have the public debate be about how much American blood and how much Iraqi blood is a barrell of Iraqi oil worth.

Zigster, concerning your above paragraph, …… “NO”, …. it depends on how FUBAR your mind is.

Zigster, that paragraph is proof positive that you can’t dissimilate between “what Bush said” …… and “what Aaron said”, so you just lumped them all together in a rambling mess of tripe which you don’t understand yourself, ………. are you burnt out on meth or what?

.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:Until you define what is meant by "vital interest", I'm not taking as Gospel the premise of your question- that Iraqi oil is of "vital interest" to America.

Ziggy, are you “burnt out” that severely, …… that someone has to define the term "vital interest" for/to you?

Zigster, bout everyone in WV but you knows what it means ……. so maybe you ought to try a Google search to solve your problem.

Here, try to comprehend this statement:

“The term "vital interest" is a subjective analysis of America's needs.”

OK. I can accept that. "Subjective analysis". My subjective analysis brings forth the question: How many American lives is a few barrells of Iraqi oil worth? And my "subjective answer" is not very damn many.

Zigster, millions of Americans think and/or believe we need more oil, even Iraqi oil. How’s come you don’t think we do?

Because the cost of acquiring that oil, in terms of how many lives and how many pints, quarts or gallons of blood it costs, is more than it is worth.

ziggy wrote:Again, it depends on what is meant by "vital interest". If that means that for Iraqi oil that it's OK to start a war under false pretenses (WMDs) but when it's really about oil, but while denying and continuing to deny that it's about oil, then no, I do not think that it is that much of a "vital interest". It we are going to trade blood for oil, then we need to have the public debate be about how much American blood and how much Iraqi blood is a barrell of Iraqi oil worth.

Zigster, concerning your above paragraph, …… “NO”, …. it depends on how FUBAR your mind is.

Zigster, that paragraph is proof positive that you can’t dissimilate between “what Bush said” …… and “what Aaron said”, so you just lumped them all together in a rambling mess of tripe which you don’t understand yourself, ………. are you burnt out on meth or what?

Nope. Never touched the stuff- and I probably wouldn't even recognize it if you showed me a bushel of it. Try again.

Sam,

You disagree with Ziggy on this issue. You also disagree with me. If we all agreed on everything I doubt anyone would post here very much.

Are you suggesting I'm on meth? I'm serious. I don't agree we invaded Iraq to stop the spread of terrorism. If that was the intent, it failed miserably. I'm not at all sure are there for oil. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to take the trillions of dollars we're spending in Iraq to set up drilling and refining operations in whichever Dakota is sitting atop all of that black gold?

Aaron thinks it's acceptable to invade and occupy another sovereign nation for its natural resources. I do not. It is Iraqi oil, not American oil. We shouldn't be in the business of forcing any nation to fork over to the US that which is theirs.

IMHO what is FUBAR is doing the same things over, and over, and over again and expecting a different result. We keep screwing around with the Arab people and they keep fighting back. Time to try a new course of action.

Appearantly you don't understand how important oil production in Iraq is, not only to US consumption, but world consumption as well and how important of a role it plays in getting Iraq stable.

Perhaps you should look at daily consumption and get an idea of how Iraq potentially producing 3 million barrells per day would effect the global supply. Additionally, you should try and guage how much revenue Iraq stands to gain from that kind of production, what it would do for their econmy and rebuilding efforts and how it would aid in them becoming independent and not have to rely on America for rebuilding their infracture.

Personally, I think those kinds of revenue would go a long way in bringing stability to Iraq and aid in our leaving or pulling back at a much faster rate but if you don't think that's of a 'vital interest' to the US and Iraq, I guess you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I just think that if you were to do a little research on the subject, you might be able to discuss it with a little more insight.

Aaron wrote:Appearantly you don't understand how important oil production in Iraq is, not only to US consumption, but world consumption as well and how important of a role it plays in getting Iraq stable.

I did not say that it was not important. I said that it is not important enough to just barge in and "stabalize" Iraq (which was more "stable" under Saddam than it is now, btw), and under the faux guise of ridding Iraq of WMDs, and while even still continuing to deny that it is about oil. If oil is important, then all America should have an honest discussion about it- and including determing how much American and Iraqi blood a barrell of Iraqi oil is worth.

Aaron wrote:Perhaps you should look at daily consumption and get an idea of how Iraq potentially producing 3 million barrells per day would effect the global supply. Additionally, you should try and guage how much revenue Iraq stands to gain from that kind of production, what it would do for their econmy and rebuilding efforts and how it would aid in them becoming independent and not have to rely on America for rebuilding their infracture.

Yeah, yeah, sure. Five years ago Donnie Rumsfeld told us that the Iraq war would cost the U.S. maybe $50 billion, would last "6 days, maybe 6 weeks, surely not 6 months", and that it would be paid for with Iraqi oil. So now 5 years later, 4011 American and countless Iraqi lives and trillions of dollars later, even the "Green zone" is still not secure.

Personally, I think those kinds of revenue would go a long way in bringing stability to Iraq and aid in our leaving or pulling back at a much faster rate but if you don't think that's of a 'vital interest' to the US and Iraq, I guess you're certainly entitled to that opinion.

There was already a thriving production and sales of Iraqi oil until we and the U.N. shut it down about 10 years or so ago.

I just think that if you were to do a little research on the subject, you might be able to discuss it with a little more insight.

Discussion? Insight? The Bush administration still denies that the U.S. war in Iraq is about oil.

If you think Iraqi oil is important, and that the U.S. war in Iraq should be about oil instead of about WMDs that don't exist, then you should tell President Bush that. You can write to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC. You can call 202-456-1111. I doubt they'll patch you through, but maybe they will take a message.

Aaron wrote:Perhaps you should look at daily consumption and get an idea of how Iraq potentially producing 3 million barrells per day would effect the global supply. Additionally, you should try and guage how much revenue Iraq stands to gain from that kind of production, what it would do for their econmy and rebuilding efforts and how it would aid in them becoming independent and not have to rely on America for rebuilding their infracture.

Yeah, yeah, sure. We've heard that before. Five years ago Donnie Rumsfeld told us that the Iraq war would cost the U.S. maybe $50 billion, would last "6 days, maybe 6 weeks, surely not 6 months", and that it would be paid for with Iraqi oil. So now 5 years later, 4011 American and countless Iraqi lives and trillions of dollars later, even the "Green zone" is still not secure.

Personally, I think those kinds of revenue would go a long way in bringing stability to Iraq and aid in our leaving or pulling back at a much faster rate but if you don't think that's of a 'vital interest' to the US and Iraq, I guess you're certainly entitled to that opinion.

There was already a thriving production and sales of Iraqi oil until we and the U.N. shut it down about 15 years or so ago. Do you not remember that "embargo"?

I just think that if you were to do a little research on the subject, you might be able to discuss it with a little more insight.

Discussion? Insight? The Bush administration still denies that the U.S. war in Iraq is about oil. So what's the use?

If you think Iraqi oil is important, and that the U.S. war in Iraq should be about oil instead of about WMDs that don't exist, then you should tell President Bush that. You can write to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC. You can call 202-456-1111. I doubt they'll patch you through, but maybe they will take a message.