Who has more executive eperience?

[Chuck S]

[/B]

First our goal was not that, it was first the WMD's which were not there, but besides that we got rid of a terrible dictator in the process. Is that so bad?

Isn't giving millions of Iraqi's freedom enough?

At what cost to us? I keep hearing about "winning" what have we won? Oh, I know, a rich Haliburton, who took our $$ and relocated to Dubai.

 

[Purrrrfecta]

[/B]

First our goal was not that, it was first the WMD's which were not there, but besides that we got rid of a terrible dictator in the process. Is that so bad?

Isn't giving millions of Iraqi's freedom enough?

So why did we concern ourselves with this terrrible dictator? There are many terrible dictators. For example, there are dictators in Africa that are killing millions.

I believe this should enlighten you!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/world/middleeast/30contract.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

[corndog]

So why did we concern ourselves with this terrrible dictator? There are many terrible dictators. For example, there are dictators in Africa that are killing millions.

I believe this should enlighten you!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/world/middleeast/30contract.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

You post that as if there is something wrong with going to war for oil. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. Until we can get the Democratics to legislate the creation of a superior alternative energy source, securing additional oil will be worth the loss of a few American lives. How many more lives must be lost by the continued inaction of this Democratic congress?

 

[Chuck S]

You post that as if there is something wrong with going to war for oil. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. Until we can get the Democratics to legislate the creation of a superior alternative energy source, securing additional oil will be worth the loss of a few American lives. How many more lives must be lost by the continued inaction of this Democratic congress?

How sad, that you think losing a few American lives to get oil is OK. I do remember that the cars were supposed to have higher MPG standards, but that was repealed by Republicans. Remember, the Dems have only held a simple congressional majority for 2 years, they still can't pass legislation if the Reps don't agree. But the Reps were in control the first 6 years of the Bush administration. Didn't see a lot of legislation then to develop alternative power sources. Did you?

 

[corndog]

How sad, that you think losing a few American lives to get oil is OK. I do remember that the cars were supposed to have higher MPG standards, but that was repealed by Republicans. Remember, the Dems have only held a simple congressional majority for 2 years, they still can't pass legislation if the Reps don't agree. But the Reps were in control the first 6 years of the Bush administration. Didn't see a lot of legislation then to develop alternative power sources. Did you?

The greater good.

 

[Chuck S]

The greater good.

Please. tell that to the more than 4,000 US families that have lost a family member. That oil was worth losing their loved one. I lost my father, for a foolish reason, when I was 4, please, please, tell it to the children that their Dad or Mom died for oil, and that is okie dokie. Don't be surprised if they tell you something you'd rather not hear.

 

[Purrrrfecta]

You post that as if there is something wrong with going to war for oil. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. Until we can get the Democratics to legislate the creation of a superior alternative energy source, securing additional oil will be worth the loss of a few American lives. How many more lives must be lost by the continued inaction of this Democratic congress?

Until we can get the Democrats to legislate the creation of a superior alternative energy source?????? DO you think that is what they want????
You are blaming this on the Dems?????


When you talk about freeing the Iraqi people this is not honest. Honesty lies when a government will say," we need to be richer so we are going to go into Afghanistan and then Iraq to turn over their governments so we can get contracts written for the oil companies in which we have interest."

 

[corndog]

Please. tell that to the more than 4,000 US families that have lost a family member.

I don't need to. Those families already knew their sons and daughters were committed to something greater than themselves.

 

[Chuck S]

I don't need to. Those families already knew their sons and daughters were committed to something greater than themselves.

Oil, according to you.

 

[corndog]

Until we can get the Democrats to legislate the creation of a superior alternative energy source?????? DO you think that is what they want????

When you talk about freeing the Iraqi people this is not honest.

Are you suggesting the Democratics don't want a superior alternative energy source?

I don't believe I ever said one word "about freeing the Iraqi people," did I?

 

[corndog]

Oil, according to you.

What does oil represent? What does oil create? What does oil allow?

Again, are you familiar with Plato's Allegory of the Cave?

 

[Chuck S]

What does oil represent? What does oil create? What does oil allow?

Again, are you familiar with Plato's Allegory of the Cave?

Yes. But I really see little practical correlation to the Iraqi people. They were well aware there were other countries, and that their country was oil rich. They weren't suddenly "brought out of a cave."

Nor should we be so arrogant to think all of the world's countries should live up to our morals and values. Some are more progressive than we on human rights, medical care, etc.

 

[corndog]

Yes. But I really see little practical correlation to the Iraqi people. They were well aware there were other countries, and that their country was oil rich. They weren't suddenly "brought out of a cave."

Nor should we be so arragant to think all thoe world's countries should live up to our morals and values. Some are more progressive than we on human rights, medical care, etc.

I am not now nor I have I ever said anything about the Iraqi people.

Why do people keep seeing things in my posts tonight that I haven't said? This has nothing to do with the Iraqi people. It's about securing our future.

 

[loco4dis]

I am not now nor I have I ever said anything about the Iraqi people.

Why do people keep seeing things in my posts tonight that I haven't said? This has nothing to do with the Iraqi people. It's about securing our future.

Corndog, really, you're fightin' the good fight, but get out of this conversation now. These kind of anti-war folks will always oppose the Iraq War, no matter how much you throw at them. They really believe Bush lied because he thought a war would be kinda cool. They really believe we don't need no stinkin' oil. They really believe soldiers are stupid children who were hoodwinked into enlisting. They really believe Iraq was this peaceful, kite-flying paradise before we went in there. They really believe Haliburton is pulling all the strings in the White House. And they really believe the Islamic jihadists are just angry at Bush, and when Obama is elected they'll hug us and we'll have a genuine kumbuya moment. I'm not even kidding. They really believe this stuff, even though all evidence is to the contrary.

Ignore them. It's just not worth the exasperation. Eventually, world events will show them the error of their ways.

 

[Chuck S]

I am not now nor I have I ever said anything about the Iraqi people.

Why do people keep seeing things in my posts tonight that I haven't said? This has nothing to do with the Iraqi people. It's about securing our future.

But we had no problem securing oil from Iraq while Saddam was in charge, did we? Even so, we need to work to switch energy sources to renewables. If we break our dependance, it really wouldn't matter how much oil we could or couldn't get, would it? Or are you saying we are doing it to secure our future as a superpower? Nuclear weapons pretty much did that, you can only destroy everything once, and it would pretty much be worldwide mass destruction, no winner.

 

[corndog]

But we had no problem securing oil from Iraq while Saddam was in charge, did we? Even so, we need to work to switch energy sources to renewables. If we break our dependance, it really wouldn't matter how much oil we could or couldn't get, would it? Or are you saying we are doing it to secure our future as a superpower? Nuclear weapons pretty much did that, you can only destroy everything once, and it would pretty much be worldwide mass destruction, no winner.

It's about more than oil from Iraq--it's the whole region. I agree with you on the renewables, but we're going to need the oil until them.

 

[rayelias]

Lincoln didn't lie to get the North into the war against the South.

Bush lied about WMDs and the mobile Chemical Weapons Factories to involve us in Iraq.

I'm going to call you out on this piece of political BS, too.
Bush "lied"?
Please furnish proof that Bush willingly, knowingly lied. Until then, you are practicing libel. I'd be careful, especially as a mod.
And, we were "involved" in Iraq because of Saddam Hussein. No one else.

So, according to you, "it is won" in Iraq...what precisely did we win? Oil? Stability? (Uhh Iraq was stable, Saddam wasn't a nice guy, but the country was stable, just like Cuba is stable.)

According to you, have we "lost" in Iraq?
Despite the slanderous political rhetoric to the contrary, it never was a war over oil. And, if it was, so what. Oil is the lifeblood to the US. It is worth going to war over.

 

[rayelias]

So do you believe they actually thought there were WMD in Iraq, and that is why they invaded the country????

The guy HAD them. The proof? He USED them!

When we, over months and months and months, demanded that Saddam Hussein allow the UN inspectors in to prove that he no longer had them, Saddam Hussein (not GWB) refused to comply with the terms of the cease fire from Dessert Storm.

Is that really too hard to understand?!?

 

[Purrrrfecta]

The guy HAD them. The proof? He USED them!

When we, over months and months and months, demanded that Saddam Hussein allow the UN inspectors in to prove that he no longer had them, Saddam Hussein (not GWB) refused to comply with the terms of the cease fire from Dessert Storm.

Is that really too hard to understand?!?

So why did the US Govt. say they THOUGHT they had them, and realized they had made a mistake?

This country is lied to on a perm basis. I am a bloody Republican, and I can admit the truth. What the heck???

So since you have all the answers YOU tell us here why we went into Iraq. Do you believe it was just over WMD?

 

[DawnCt1]

How sad, that you think losing a few American lives to get oil is OK. I do remember that the cars were supposed to have higher MPG standards, but that was repealed by Republicans. Remember, the Dems have only held a simple congressional majority for 2 years, they still can't pass legislation if the Reps don't agree. But the Reps were in control the first 6 years of the Bush administration. Didn't see a lot of legislation then to develop alternative power sources. Did you?

If were about oil, We would have invaded Mexico. Its a lot closer to home.