Akil
You brought up an interesting point.
You once again posted an article that accuses the US of "taking over an arab country for its oil."
I have heard that before.
Question is though exactly how much oil do/have we taken???
Seem to reason that if we're NOT pumping the country dry of oil then the whole line of reasoning breaks down.
I mean if we "really" stealing millions of gallons of crude oil we would need tankers, equipment, men etc--that would be pretty easy to track.
As far as I know there is NO such project---accusations aside.
Maybe it's time to prove it or let it go???
hate anger rage
Moderator: Available
-
Akil Todd Harvey
- Posts: 790
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
- Contact:
Mistakes Led Way Into War; Revenge Won't Be a Way Out
It is nice to see people responding to what was said, not their perceptions of what was said.
the president allowed his most hawkish advisors to turn the world into a more violent, hateful place. Those who believe that barbarism must be countered with more barbarism now control our foreign policy.
William French
Los Angeles
Revenge? Isn't that how the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict started? I agree that what happened to those four civilian contractors was appalling and made my blood boil. But embracing an eye-for-an-eye mentality now in Fallouja will only exacerbate the problem and leave us in such a quagmire that we will have no hope of getting out. Our only option is to continue to engage with those Iraqis who want to work to better their country. We need to train and strengthen their own security forces. Once the Iraqis can police themselves, only then will support for the insurgency melt away.
Raymond Tam
Glendale
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
-
Akil Todd Harvey
- Posts: 790
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
- Contact:
The More We Try, the Worse Iraq Gets
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... t-opinions
[/quote]It is the beginning of the end for the United States in Iraq. No amount of glib optimism from Bush administration soothsayers can conceal that reality. Sure, the U.S. possesses the military might to hang on indefinitely, but only through the continuous sacrifice of lives in a reckless venture that never had an honestly stated purpose.
Now that thousands of rioting Shiites have been added to the persistent Sunni insurrection targeting the U.S.-led occupation, it is absurd to define the enemy as only foreigners or agents of the captured tyrant Saddam Hussein. The "coalition" forces are the foreigners, in fact, and the U.S.-financed quisling local government fools no one, regardless of the planned "handover" of power.
Under the false conceit that the adventure made sense as part of the fight against terror, the U.S. seized a country containing a major portion of the world's most valued and scarce resource. Yet our leaders expect the natives to believe that the corporate camp followers of the U.S. military are only swarming over their country for the purpose of humanitarian reconstruction.
Just how dumb do we think they are? After all, Iraqis know their own tortuous history. Theirs is a country patched together at the end of a gun barrel by previous colonizers. The common denominator of those imperial designs was the exploitation of oil rather than the desire to produce a harmonious, let alone democratic, society.
Nor does the U.S. have clean hands. During the Cold War, Washington tried to break any government or leader in the region unwilling to bend to its will, including popular nationalists Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and Abdul Karim Kassem in Iraq. Never heard of Kassem? He's the guy the CIA hired young Hussein and other unsavory thugs to overthrow (and then kill) because he dared to challenge the strong U.S. role in the region after World War II.
And so it goes. Hussein's rule emerged from U.S. inability to allow yet another country to find its own way, just as Al Qaeda was blowback from our "freedom-fighting" team in the cynical Cold War proxy conflict that destroyed Afghanistan. The only link between Osama bin Laden and Hussein is that they are both monsters of our creation.
To its credit, the U.S. is also the nation that genuinely sought to advance the Mideast peace process under every recent president until George W. Bush. From Jimmy Carter through the first President Bush to Bill Clinton, the U.S. aimed to undermine the region's irrational and fundamentalist forces with a genuine peace between Palestinians and Israelis. For once, the United States deserved high praise for attempting to mitigate rather than exploit the grievances that have left the region a breeding ground for terrorism and rage.
Yet, under the current administration, this good-faith effort has been discarded, further disillusioning U.S. friends in the Mideast and stoking those in the region who spew hateful rhetoric against Jews and "infidels."
And even when that rhetoric again manifested itself in violence with the deadly attacks on the U.S. destroyer Cole in Yemen, it was of bare interest to then-candidate Bush. He rarely referenced terrorism during the campaign and, the record is now clear, all but ignored the Al Qaeda terror threat in the months leading up to the attacks on 9/11.
Instead, his focus was the irrelevant target of Iraq, defanged by 10 years of sanctions and U.N. weapons inspections but still possessing huge reserves of black gold. Few in the rest of the world, least of all the Iraqi people, are buying the administration's current line, that the prime goal of the occupation is simply to turn Iraq into a good place to live.
Consequently, while it would be great if that country were to end up in the column of democratic societies, the tragic events of recent days once again remind us that it is an outcome made less likely by each additional day we presume to know what is best for the rest of the world — and we impose those views with our awesome military power.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
-
Akil Todd Harvey
- Posts: 790
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
- Contact:
CXT,
So, the US has had difficulty obtaining oil from an unwilling Iraq and that is supposed to disprove the theory that at least part of our original intent was to secure the oil??????
Benzo,
Gotta run......Akil
So, the US has had difficulty obtaining oil from an unwilling Iraq and that is supposed to disprove the theory that at least part of our original intent was to secure the oil??????
Benzo,
Ben, above I see a man coming to grips with very strong feelings as opposed to letting those feelings control you.......I am quick to commend you on your honesty and integrity.........That will make you better than them any day of the week.......I don't really want to turn Iraq into a big sheet of glass.. but I sometimes feel anger boiling up inside of me.. and when I see images of Americans being stung up and their charred limbs thrown over telephone wire like a pair of old sneakers.. and the Iraqis dancing and cheering in the street, you know what??? For a few split seconds I think about the stock piles of nuclear weapons we have and how easy it would be to wipe that skid mark called Iraq off the face of the earth. You know why?? Because they are MY people. My fellow Americans.
Gotta run......Akil
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Akil
I'm with CXT here; you haven't proven the U.S., the Bush administration, or anyone else associated with them is out to seize Iraqi oil. All I see is quote after quote of Bush bashing. I'm no fan of George W, but I see your extremist biases as clearly as I hear Rush's on the radio.
Does this struggle have anything to do with oil at all? Of course!! In fact the military efforts all started over a decade ago when Hussein seized Kuwait for their oil reserves. At that point, he wasn't far from Riyad, and control of the bulk of world petroleum reserves. That could have been the start of WWIII.
Oil is an asset that can purchase some serious weapons. It funded Palestinian suicide bombers. It purchased the makings of WMDs in the 1980s from - yes - the likes of the U.S. and Britain. It helped fund the killing of a million (1,000,000) Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war. In the hands of an insane idiot that would rather build palaces than feed his people, and who had an ax to grind with the U.S., it was a recipe for disaster.
I'm not wild about the fact that we removed a sovereign government. But I also don't buy all the sanctimonious, biased writers you are quoting. There were no angels in the region; only other devils (France, Gemany, Russia) profiting from the flow of black gold and aiding a very nasty situation. The U.S. had no friends in the region - only self seekers. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Britain were stuck - ad infinitum - with defending the Kurds and the Shia from Hussein and his brutal regime. Remember the "no fly zone?" Remember all the pot shots Hussein was taking at our planes? Remember him ignoring dozens of U.N. sanctions and thumbing his nose at the world community - while they did nothing? And we continued to foot the bill to police the area???
I don't know what the best solution was, but I see nothing posed by your writers that convinces me any of them would have been capable of doing anything other than talking about history - with 20/20 hindsight. And I don't buy that other administrations get left off the hook for creating the mess that George W inherited.
I also don't buy that the U.S. is engaged in "an eye-for-an-eye mentality." If it were, then you'd see some charred Fallujah bodies hanging from the gun turrets of tanks parading through the town. There can be no society where there is lawlessness. There can be no laws where there is no justice. And there can be no justice where there is no punishment for brutal behavior.
As for the Shia, well wouldn't you know that the cleric who instigated all that violence is a young buck who is wanted IN IRAQ....for murdering another cleric. The warrant is a year old. Imagine that!!!
Nothing noble here, Akil. I am not impressed with the company you defend.
I do however compliment you for coming to grips with the original thought processes of this thread (Ben's original topic).
- Bill
I'm with CXT here; you haven't proven the U.S., the Bush administration, or anyone else associated with them is out to seize Iraqi oil. All I see is quote after quote of Bush bashing. I'm no fan of George W, but I see your extremist biases as clearly as I hear Rush's on the radio.
Does this struggle have anything to do with oil at all? Of course!! In fact the military efforts all started over a decade ago when Hussein seized Kuwait for their oil reserves. At that point, he wasn't far from Riyad, and control of the bulk of world petroleum reserves. That could have been the start of WWIII.
Oil is an asset that can purchase some serious weapons. It funded Palestinian suicide bombers. It purchased the makings of WMDs in the 1980s from - yes - the likes of the U.S. and Britain. It helped fund the killing of a million (1,000,000) Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war. In the hands of an insane idiot that would rather build palaces than feed his people, and who had an ax to grind with the U.S., it was a recipe for disaster.
I'm not wild about the fact that we removed a sovereign government. But I also don't buy all the sanctimonious, biased writers you are quoting. There were no angels in the region; only other devils (France, Gemany, Russia) profiting from the flow of black gold and aiding a very nasty situation. The U.S. had no friends in the region - only self seekers. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Britain were stuck - ad infinitum - with defending the Kurds and the Shia from Hussein and his brutal regime. Remember the "no fly zone?" Remember all the pot shots Hussein was taking at our planes? Remember him ignoring dozens of U.N. sanctions and thumbing his nose at the world community - while they did nothing? And we continued to foot the bill to police the area???
I don't know what the best solution was, but I see nothing posed by your writers that convinces me any of them would have been capable of doing anything other than talking about history - with 20/20 hindsight. And I don't buy that other administrations get left off the hook for creating the mess that George W inherited.
I also don't buy that the U.S. is engaged in "an eye-for-an-eye mentality." If it were, then you'd see some charred Fallujah bodies hanging from the gun turrets of tanks parading through the town. There can be no society where there is lawlessness. There can be no laws where there is no justice. And there can be no justice where there is no punishment for brutal behavior.
As for the Shia, well wouldn't you know that the cleric who instigated all that violence is a young buck who is wanted IN IRAQ....for murdering another cleric. The warrant is a year old. Imagine that!!!
Nothing noble here, Akil. I am not impressed with the company you defend.
I do however compliment you for coming to grips with the original thought processes of this thread (Ben's original topic).
- Bill
Akil
No, the point was that many times the "the US is after the oil" accusations are hurled without a single shred of proof that its being done.
Point being if we are not actually "stealing" the oil--and we don't seem to be--then the accusation has no factual basis.
We have had plenty of opportunity to start sucking Iraq dry--but we have not done so.
So maybe its time to drop the accusations??
No, the point was that many times the "the US is after the oil" accusations are hurled without a single shred of proof that its being done.
Point being if we are not actually "stealing" the oil--and we don't seem to be--then the accusation has no factual basis.
We have had plenty of opportunity to start sucking Iraq dry--but we have not done so.
So maybe its time to drop the accusations??
-
benzocaine
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
- Location: St. Thomas
-
Akil Todd Harvey
- Posts: 790
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
- Contact:
A Descent Into Dishonor
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... t-opinions
By Andrew J. Bacevich, Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University, is currently a fellow at the American Academy in Berlin.
By Andrew J. Bacevich, Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University, is currently a fellow at the American Academy in Berlin.
Sen. Edward Kennedy's recent characterization of Iraq as President Bush's Vietnam is as predictable as it is misleading. The news is actually much worse. Iraq may be shaping up to be America's Algeria.
Day by day, the evidence mounts that an ugly war is turning uglier. U.S. and coalition troop losses, which have again spiked upward, provide one measure of that ugliness. The ratcheting up of American firepower and the climbing toll of Iraqi dead, many of them evidently innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire, provide a second. But there is a third measure, perhaps the most troubling of all: hints that the discipline of U. S. forces is beginning to fray.
In a story that has not attracted widespread attention but should, the Washington Post has reported a second incidence of an Army battalion commander being cited for misconduct. The first episode involved terrorizing an Iraqi prisoner. The more recent involved American soldiers dumping a pair of Iraqi detainees off a bridge into the Tigris River — a clear violation of the Geneva Convention — and the commander being reprimanded. Iraqis claim one detainee drowned.
Welcome to urban guerrilla warfare — a type of war radically different from the United States' last unhappy encounter with guerrillas. In Vietnam, intense fighting was concentrated in the countryside. South Vietnam's mountains and jungles offered communist guerrillas sanctuary, concealment and a base of operations. Major cities saw heavy combat only rarely, as during the famous 1968 Tet offensive.
In Iraq, the situation is the reverse. The countryside is a barren wasteland of little use to the insurgents. The dense and complicated urban landscape, by comparison, offers an ideal operational environment. So cities like Baghdad and Fallouja have become focal points of resistance. Here the insurgents hide, draw sustenance and launch their most effective attacks against coalition forces.
This is where the Algerian parallel becomes instructive. In the Algerian war for independence, which began in 1954 and lasted until 1962, cities also played a central role. Control of Algiers, the capital, was the war's primary bone of contention and, hence, the site of the bitter struggle that pitted Algerian "terrorists" against the French "forces of order."
In their efforts to destroy the National Liberation Front, French authorities found that conventional tactics did not work. To abide by the traditional law of war was to concede to the other side an enormous advantage. So, in their frustration, the French opted to fight a "dirty war," employing systematic torture, extrajudicial killings and their own brand of terror.
The effect was dramatic: French forces made impressive tactical gains, temporarily dismantled much of the resistance network and regained control of Algiers — at the cost of mobilizing the Algerian people against any possibility of continued French rule. The army destroyed the last shreds of French legitimacy in Algeria and thereby laid the foundation for eventual French defeat.
This process was brilliantly captured in Gillo Pontecorvo's recently re-released 1967 docudrama, "The Battle of Algiers." Last summer, perhaps to remind itself of the dangers of winning battles in ways that lose wars, the Pentagon screened Pontecorvo's film for Defense Department officials. But one wonders if the lessons making their way into the field are the right ones.
In one of the film's most famous scenes, reporters question the hard-as-nails French commander, sent to clean up Algiers, about rumors of torture and assassination. We are just doing what you sent us to do, Col. Mathieu replies — quibbling about the methods that must be employed is rank hypocrisy.
Alas, there are signs that Mathieu's attitude may be taking hold among the U.S. troops in Iraq. Asked about the punishments meted out for the Tigris River incident, an American soldier told the Post, "It's a little like the French colonel in 'The Battle of Algiers.' … You're all complaining about the tactics I am using to win the war, but that's what I am doing — winning the war."
To which, however much they may empathize with those sent to wage this ugly war, American political and military leaders must emphatically reply: Not true and not acceptable.
Indiscipline, lawlessness and the excessive use of force will not guarantee victory in Iraq; indeed, the reverse is true.
The French experience in Algeria stands as a warning: Down that road lies not only defeat but also dishonor.
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Good morning, Akil.
A few words....
First, what do you think?
Second,
Third, we have little to learn from the French about military successes.
Fourth, note how "liberally" Professor Bacevich quotes the Washington Post. Consider the source...just as I do when I listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Fifth, if you want to start quoting the Geneva Convention, then tell me why the tribalists in Fallujah were firing from within the walls of a mosque. And tell me why Sadr and his militia are hiding in his mosque.
And finally, I agree that atrocity is not a way to win a conflict. Indeed this is why the Marines are in Fallujah as we speak. It's not nice to mutilate the bodies of your enemies. And it's why Shia Cleric Sadr is a wanted man. I hear murdering clerics isn't a socially acceptable activity these days...
- Bill
A few words....
First, what do you think?
Second,
Indeed. If you had been reading up on the situation before the war, you would have seen analyses about this type of fighting. The American military are way ahead of you and Professor Bacevich. The Marines going in there know what they are doing. Hell, I could quote you tactics published in the U.S.A. Today over a year ago.Welcome to urban guerrilla warfare
Third, we have little to learn from the French about military successes.
Fourth, note how "liberally" Professor Bacevich quotes the Washington Post. Consider the source...just as I do when I listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Fifth, if you want to start quoting the Geneva Convention, then tell me why the tribalists in Fallujah were firing from within the walls of a mosque. And tell me why Sadr and his militia are hiding in his mosque.
And finally, I agree that atrocity is not a way to win a conflict. Indeed this is why the Marines are in Fallujah as we speak. It's not nice to mutilate the bodies of your enemies. And it's why Shia Cleric Sadr is a wanted man. I hear murdering clerics isn't a socially acceptable activity these days...
- Bill
-
Akil Todd Harvey
- Posts: 790
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
- Contact:
Anger Hate Rage
If you seek retribution for the crimes committed, that is one thing, but when one declares emphatically (originally, not now) the desire to do things that will clearly harm both the innocent with the guilty, I have little difficulty declaring it to be obscene. A wrong is a wrong is a wrong, no matter who does it.........
As for Iraqi oil......Although my proof is hardly a foreign policy statement, when the article gets published in the NY Times the day before the Iraq invasion and the article is titled, "Let's make Iraq our strategic oil reserve", it was written by a former high offical in the reagan Bush white house and none of you on this web site repudiated it as an indefensible policy, whether or not we actually get a single drop of Iraqi oil, the stated intention of going after Iraqi oil, at least in part, has already been proven, and not by me, but by your own willingness to make Iraq our national oil reserve, whether in actuality or by intent. Sorry, you have not succeeded, but we all know that at least for some that was the stated intention, so a failure to produce does not mean that they did not want to.
I believe the Bush administration has been called the most secretive administration in US history, even more so than the Nixon one. The fact that the numbers of oil coming from iraqi oil wells is secret and we do not know about it does not mean that they are not occurring. For example, we are still waiting to hear who Cheney met with to hash out a national energy policy, I should think that a national energy policy need not be kept secret, nor the participants who came to these policies, but then again, apparently, I have become a bit too comfortable living ina democracy in which we have such things that we tyake for granted like freedom of information, freedom of association, etc.........
Many thanks for the character assassinations that so many have been involved in .......I was told I was wrong in attributing this or that method to OBL and I have to say that as far as I know, the most dangerous thing I could do right now would be to read books about obl....I avoid them at all costs as I dont need fbi, cia or other secretive organizations busting down my door, etc.......So glad we could have an erosion of civil liberties at a time when the social security surplus pot is being robbed by another republican administration (it's my money, so put it down, fund your wars with someone else's money)........
Be well........and be fair
Akil
As for Iraqi oil......Although my proof is hardly a foreign policy statement, when the article gets published in the NY Times the day before the Iraq invasion and the article is titled, "Let's make Iraq our strategic oil reserve", it was written by a former high offical in the reagan Bush white house and none of you on this web site repudiated it as an indefensible policy, whether or not we actually get a single drop of Iraqi oil, the stated intention of going after Iraqi oil, at least in part, has already been proven, and not by me, but by your own willingness to make Iraq our national oil reserve, whether in actuality or by intent. Sorry, you have not succeeded, but we all know that at least for some that was the stated intention, so a failure to produce does not mean that they did not want to.
I believe the Bush administration has been called the most secretive administration in US history, even more so than the Nixon one. The fact that the numbers of oil coming from iraqi oil wells is secret and we do not know about it does not mean that they are not occurring. For example, we are still waiting to hear who Cheney met with to hash out a national energy policy, I should think that a national energy policy need not be kept secret, nor the participants who came to these policies, but then again, apparently, I have become a bit too comfortable living ina democracy in which we have such things that we tyake for granted like freedom of information, freedom of association, etc.........
Many thanks for the character assassinations that so many have been involved in .......I was told I was wrong in attributing this or that method to OBL and I have to say that as far as I know, the most dangerous thing I could do right now would be to read books about obl....I avoid them at all costs as I dont need fbi, cia or other secretive organizations busting down my door, etc.......So glad we could have an erosion of civil liberties at a time when the social security surplus pot is being robbed by another republican administration (it's my money, so put it down, fund your wars with someone else's money)........
I am not very impressed lately either as I was not defending anyone other than those that are innocent, but since they are innocent iraqis, not innocent americans, they must be fair game.......guilty iraqis get little sympathy from me.......and bullies deserve nothing short of my ire......Nothing noble here, Akil. I am not impressed with the company you defend.
Be well........and be fair
Akil
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
-
Akil Todd Harvey
- Posts: 790
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
- Contact:
Morning to you, sir.....
I wouldn't mind sharing my opinions, but as I expect mistreatment for daring to state any views, I use some caution.......
A lot of bashing going on here and it aint all aimed at Bush.......Most of it is aimed squrely at me......three, four and five on one......seems fair, right?
and if five on one cannot win, malign and misattribute, who will take the time to see the difference anyway???????
I wouldn't mind sharing my opinions, but as I expect mistreatment for daring to state any views, I use some caution.......
A lot of bashing going on here and it aint all aimed at Bush.......Most of it is aimed squrely at me......three, four and five on one......seems fair, right?
and if five on one cannot win, malign and misattribute, who will take the time to see the difference anyway???????
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Akil
So your "proof" that we are after the oil is a single op-ed piece written by a "former (un-named by you) high official of the reagan/bush white house."
1st-That has exactly NOTHING to do with the current admin--you yourself say it written by a guy from an admin that left the white house almost a decade ago.
2nd-No, "the stated intention of going after Iraq's oil" has NOT already been "proven."
If it had you would have actual PROOF, you know dates, places, amount of oil shipments, how many gallons we "took" what tankers transported it etc
All you really have is re-tred accusations--thats not proof of ANY sort.
3td- Interesting quote "WHETHER IN ACUALITY OR BY INTENT."
3A-You have proven NEITHER "Intent" OR "Actuality"
3B-You can't really have it both ways--if there was no "intent" you can't actually use that as a "wrong"
3C-If there is no "Actuality" you have no "wrong" there either.
Your also seem to be saying that a couple of mutually contadictory things.
1-First you say it does not matter if we are really stealing oil or not-we MEANT to do it.
2- The you say that we have no proof that we are stealing oil again WE MEANT TO DO IT.
3-You have no proof we meant to do it. You have no proof we are doing it.
4-So you shift your lack of proof to a "secret Bush White House"
Hinting darkly that there may be some kind of "super secret" massive oil theft going on--but there is no proof because "the Bush admin is the most secretive admin in history"
What you are saying--in effect- "there is no proof we are stealing oil--but that does not matter beacuse we intended to steal oil--but there is no proof of that becuase the Bush people are secrative--so there is no proof-but that does not matter because......"
See, none of that makes good rational sense.
So your "proof" that we are after the oil is a single op-ed piece written by a "former (un-named by you) high official of the reagan/bush white house."
1st-That has exactly NOTHING to do with the current admin--you yourself say it written by a guy from an admin that left the white house almost a decade ago.
2nd-No, "the stated intention of going after Iraq's oil" has NOT already been "proven."
If it had you would have actual PROOF, you know dates, places, amount of oil shipments, how many gallons we "took" what tankers transported it etc
All you really have is re-tred accusations--thats not proof of ANY sort.
3td- Interesting quote "WHETHER IN ACUALITY OR BY INTENT."
3A-You have proven NEITHER "Intent" OR "Actuality"
3B-You can't really have it both ways--if there was no "intent" you can't actually use that as a "wrong"
3C-If there is no "Actuality" you have no "wrong" there either.
Your also seem to be saying that a couple of mutually contadictory things.
1-First you say it does not matter if we are really stealing oil or not-we MEANT to do it.
2- The you say that we have no proof that we are stealing oil again WE MEANT TO DO IT.
3-You have no proof we meant to do it. You have no proof we are doing it.
4-So you shift your lack of proof to a "secret Bush White House"
Hinting darkly that there may be some kind of "super secret" massive oil theft going on--but there is no proof because "the Bush admin is the most secretive admin in history"
What you are saying--in effect- "there is no proof we are stealing oil--but that does not matter beacuse we intended to steal oil--but there is no proof of that becuase the Bush people are secrative--so there is no proof-but that does not matter because......"
See, none of that makes good rational sense.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Been there, done that. It'll hone your martial skills!A lot of bashing going on here and it aint all aimed at Bush.......Most of it is aimed squrely at me......three, four and five on one......seems fair, right?
You are still welcome to post here, Akil. Nobody said it would be easy or fun to present a minority opinion. But it's good for all of us to get the facts down and discuss them.
These are passionate times. Lives are being lost all the way around.
- Bill
-
jorvik
Quote
"When I see things like this it puts a different face on those people. And I am sorry but at this moment I'd just as soon see the entire region turned into a sheet of glass."
I see you have the same wisdom and insight as your President
Quote
"REV 8:11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter."
check out
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/
"When I see things like this it puts a different face on those people. And I am sorry but at this moment I'd just as soon see the entire region turned into a sheet of glass."
I see you have the same wisdom and insight as your President
Quote
"REV 8:11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter."
check out
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/
