Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:41 am Post subject: I'll take some cheap oil, please! | |
|
..
Last edited by kanaka on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:11 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:22 am Post subject: | |
|
I have a website to recommend to you. If you need a good laugh, sign on to jibjab.com
Oh my word.... I laughed till I hurt. It's worth the time. Footie |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:40 am Post subject: | |
|
..
Last edited by kanaka on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 6:25 am Post subject: | |
| It really floors me how hostile Canada is becoming to the US. You would think that since Canadas economy is so dependent on the US doing well that more Canadians would help or at least support the US more. Kinda sad when hate takes over for common sense. Like it or not Canada's economy and frankly safety in the world is dependent on the US........It is a FACT and there is no disputing it. | |
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:08 am Post subject: | |||
|
Ahh the oil thing.
Here's a little tidbit I posted in another debate about the invasion waaay back in January of 2003. I believe most of it still holds true. If anything, it'll be a little history into my opposition of the invasion.
I think that, if I were to post this today, I would do a little more research into the relationship between SA and the US before making such a claim about potential arms deals with Iraq. But, like I said, this post is well over a year old. Regardless, I find it interesting that the oil premise has all but left the debate as of late. It seems the whole WmD debacle has us distracted from what just may be the real reason Iraq was targetted. |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:06 pm Post subject: | |
|
..
Last edited by kanaka on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:13 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:23 pm Post subject: | |
|
Clearly with over 50% of the world's oil sitting squarly in the Middle East, the United States (and other western countries) have more than a passing interest in what happens in that region.
Western countries simply cannot allow themselves to be held hostage by ME countries over oil. I certainly am not advocating military action to obtain oil (like sleK is suggesting is at the root of our action against Iraq and again has no proof to back up his outrageous statements), there are other ways to ensure we get our allotment at a reasonable price. Many of these countries are dependant on the US for some of their basic services, protection, etc. Many of these same countries are in debt to the United States for one thing or another. Start taking away some of these services we're providing and start calling in some of that debt, if these oil glut countries have difficulty parting with some of that oil. FS |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 7:12 pm Post subject: | |
I can't remember where I found this, but it seems appropriate:
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 245
Location: Seattle
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 8:57 am Post subject: | |||
Canadians are not hostile to the US. They just disagree with policies of the Bush Government. As do the Democrats. Canada is a nation built on trying to solve international disputes through peaceful methods. They of course, become concerned when they see policies coming out of Washington , that circumvent international treaties. As should all Americans. |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 12:55 pm Post subject: | |
|
"They of course, become concerned when they see policies coming out of Washington , that circumvent international treaties. As should all Americans."
And I, or course, get concerned when a dictator repeatedly fails to follow UN security resolutions. The UN (note, not the US) told Saddam he had to abide by these resolutions over and over again and got only promises with no action. I would liken it to the parent scolding an unruly child with threats of punishment that would never come. Result? The child continues to misbehave. This situation is as simple as that. When the "spanking" of Saddam finally came, it was the United Nations in the role of spineless "parent" who wanted to give him one more chance, or the inspectors one of opportunity to uncover evidence. What this stall tactic did was give Saddam plenty of time to dispose of any evidence (which in my opinion did/does exist). So let this be another history lesson. A tyrant left alone will widen his circle of terror. Ronald Reagan taught us we are safer when we are stronger. I believe history will show the long term benefits of ousting Saddam Hussein certainly justify the US led actions. Saddam is out of power and the world is a better place because of it. Footsoldier |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 2:17 pm Post subject: | |
|
..
Last edited by kanaka on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 2:31 pm Post subject: | |
|
I don't believe you will find any anti-Canadian posts from me. I have not and do not blame Canada for anything.
But what I do have a problem with is when people make the villian out to be the United States. Make no mistake, the villian is Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and leaders like them. There are alot of people in this country and around the world who's passion and anger is VERY misplaced. There appears to be more outrage at the Bush administration than at those who directed the 9/11 attack or at Saddam's killing of his own people. People need to direct their anger on the perpetrators and not on those trying to rid the evil from society. Footsoldier Last edited by FOOTSOLDIER on Sun Jul 25, 2004 3:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 2:57 pm Post subject: | |
|
..
Last edited by kanaka on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:01 pm Post subject: | |
|
Reasonable people can disagree on what to do about a problem. Canada is not evil. The United States is not evil. It is not evil for the two countries to have differing views on how to deal with the evil that exists in the world.
My point is.... let's focus our hatred, anger, and vengance on the truly evil individuals in our society (Saddam, Osama, Al Quida, etc.) and not on George Bush, Dick Cheany, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, or the Canadian Prime Minister. Footie |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:08 pm Post subject: | |
|
..
Last edited by kanaka on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 5:39 pm Post subject: | |
|
No apology needed but I accept your sentiments. I have always thought of Canada as our friendly neighbor and close ally. Nothing in recent years has changed that in my mind.
I can't speak for some others in this country but I don't happen to subscribe to the anti-Canadian rhetoric heard from some corners. FS |
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 245
Location: Seattle
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 8:02 pm Post subject: | |
|
I agree that Saddam had to be removed. But, I wish that Bush would've waited a little longer to build a better international consensus. It came about in Bosnia, all it took was a litttle patience.
WMD should have never been used as the excuse for the war. The fact that Saddam was violating UN decree ( about weapons inspectors) should have been the main reason for entering Iraq. The UN is not without blame here either. The UN should have never allowed this to drag on this long. They put the conditions in place after the first gulf war, after three years of non compliance, they should have gone back in. People are quick to blame the US for this war, but,Hussein was known for killing innocent people en masse. He invaded another country and tried to take it over. He was using the food for oil program to help refinance his military. ( even though Hussein has billions hidden in African and Swiss banks he prefered to let his people starve.) How can we as civilized people sit by and allow that to happen? |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 11:16 pm Post subject: | |
|
I think it is fantasy to just believe WMD's were NEVER present just because no one has been able to locate them to date.
WMD may not YET have been found but prior intelligence (including what the Clinton Administration uncovered) told us they had them. Hussein had plenty of time to dispose of them. I personally believe they did/do exist and we just haven't found them yet. There have been little tell tale signs found (not widely reported either, I might add) which look suspicious but the weapons themselves are still elusive. Unfortunately, this argument probably falls along partisan lines. Those who voted for and support Ceorge W. Bush tend to believe the weapons are there somewhere while those who still contend Bush stole the election from Al Gore revel in the fact no WMD's have been found yet. FS |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2004 11:22 pm Post subject: | |||
Actually, go back and listen to Bush's speech to the United Nations BEFORE any military action had taken place. It was the long list of UN resolutions that Saddam and Iraq had promised to follow but ultimately ignored. The threat of WMD's was but ONE of the reasons for military action against Iraq. Again, Bush haters have fabricated the story that WMD's were the only reason for going to war and unfortunately, too many others have swallowed it hook line and sinker. FS |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 933
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 1:05 am Post subject: | |
|
..
Last edited by kanaka on Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:15 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 1:08 am Post subject: | |||||||
Exactly! War should be used as an absolute last resort: not an economically advantageous substitute for diplomacy. ***
Yes, but whether or not they WERE there was never the allegation made. The allegation was simply that they ARE there and that they WILL be used.
As has been demonstrated countless times, the threat of WmD's was the sole pretense for garnering the necessary public support for the invasion. Despite our acknowledgement and understanding of it, fear remains a very powerful organizing tool and fear was skillfully wielded by the Bush Administration in the ramp-up to the invasion. You need only examine the language used by the administration to corroborate such. If you do, you'll find lots of examples like "we know" and "he has" and "he will" which were clearly intended to lead the public to a particular conclusion. So, it's not so much a matter of "hating Bush" as it is a matter of (rightfully) despising the Bush administrations willful manipulation of public sentiment. |
|||||||
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 245
Location: Seattle
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 1:32 am Post subject: | |
I don't dispute that he had weapons. There has been linkage that Rumsfield himself helped procure the weapons for Saddam. I seem to remember footage before the 1st gulf war of Iraq purchasing apricot pits from a Florida company. ( remember, this was 15 years ago,and my memory is not what it once was)  I believe the pits could be used to produce a cyanide gas. I think it was a 60 Minutes piece...
As I said I don't think the weapons should have been the reason that was focused on. The fact that he gased 3,000 Kurds, during sanctions, was a more persuasive argument. Granted the UN is slow to move, as all bureaucracies are, but waiting may have been the more prudent gesture. I don't see Bush haters as having the need to fabricate anything. Bush himself made sure that this was the principle reason that was emphasized as the need to attack Iraq. Faulty intelligence or not, this is what weighed on the hearts and minds of the American public and their lawmakers. We had just been through the devastating affects of 911. No one wants to see a similar attack happening on US soil ever again. As to date, the connection to Iraq and Bin Laden have yet to be proven. Hussein was contained, we were attacked by Bin Laden. This is were our efforts should be concentrated. The capture and trial of this terrorist. |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:20 am Post subject: | |
|
Kanaka..... let me take a page out of sleK's book. I was referencing Bush's speech to the UN. You then come back with quotes from his state of the union speech.
Now sleK.... had that been my response, how would you have skewered me publically in this thread for that move? You would have responded to me along the lines of..... "Are you retarded or what? I specifically mentioned his speech to the UN and the best you can do is come back with an entirely different speech." Or something equally as clever. Footsoldier |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:35 am Post subject: | |
|
I fail to see how any of that addresses or disputes Kanakas point Footie'.
Kanaka, perhaps you could re-assert your point in terms Footsoldier can comprehend? |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:40 am Post subject: | |||
sleK.... go back and review my post. Then go back and review the text from the speech Bush gave at the UN. THAT is the speech I reference. THAT is what Kanaka should have responded to..... in order to keep within YOUR posting rules you like to remind me of. What's good for the goose..... FS |
|||