The Impeachment of President Bush

[Ørion]

What lies are you talking about. Multiple foreign intelligence agencies (including Russia's, one of the major opponents of the war) all said that Saddam possessed WMD's. A decision was made based on available intelligence at the time. Certainly no intelligence is 100% infallible; all decisions are essentially some kind of calculated risk. You come up with the likelihood of each scenario and make a decision based on that. Obviously the decision didn't pan out as far as finding WMD's goes. But something being the "right" decision depends on what you know at the time of making the decision, and not what you know after the fact. Not to mention that us not finding WMD's when we got there doesn't mean they never existed in the first place. In short I think it's profoundly naive to think it can ever be proved that it was a lie.

I'd like to bring this back for someone to answer. I hear all the time about bush's many lies, but what are you referring too? Are you referring that he was told that Iraq had WMDs from several sources and acted on that? Hussein has had them in the past and there was no reason to assume he didn't have them again. Perhaps you are talking about something different? I would be pleased to learn.

 

[Aesir]

Did he specifically have the means to make these strike plans possible? The answer is no. Scott Ritter noted that Iraq didn't have the means to carry out any of the accusations of the bush administration. There were no WMD's and as far as biological weapons go even if they had them they had no means of deploying them.

in 2003 it was the final report that Iraq had no WMD's. Bush also ignored the UN and broke international law, Bush has demonstrated time and time again that he believes his word > everyone else's despite the evidence.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

Did he specifically have the means to make these strike plans possible? The answer is no. Scott Ritter noted that Iraq didn't have the means to carry out any of the accusations of the bush administration. There were no WMD's and as far as biological weapons go even if they had them they had no means of deploying them.

in 2003 it was the final report that Iraq had no WMD's. Bush also ignored the UN and broke international law, Bush has demonstrated time and time again that he believes his word > everyone else's despite the evidence.

Iraqis could use mobile artillery, their aircraft, SCUD missiles, ya know, those things that they used before?
Anyway, Iraq was capable of deploying biological weapons and had done it many times before.

 

[Aesir]

Iraq had not used biological weapons since 1991, the evidence that they could in 2003 isn't sound enough evidence to point to them as a possible threat. North Korea and Iran are far more threatening then Iraq was.

But despite all that, Bush ignored the UN and cost the US billions of dollars. The war as it stands was unjustified no weapons were found. Iraq posed no immediate threat.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

CBO estimates that appropriations for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 through February 2008 total $752 billion.
Also, According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq.
Hundreds of billions of dollars!
Let's compare this to see if it is as astronomically high as it looks, how high a percentage of the total US spending this is, and compare it to money spent on previous wars, Korean, Vietnam, Gulf War, World War II.(equivalent amounts, not 1940 dollars, crappy 2008 dollars).
Sorry, could not find Korean war or WWII, and am going to eat, so I do not want to look.

Between 1965 and 1973, the United States spent $120 billion on the Vietnam War ($700 billion in 2007 dollars).

The cost of the Persian Gulf war to the United States was calculated by the United States Congress to be $61.1 billion.(short war, but enemy was Saddam).

 

[lonejedi]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200602/SPE20060202a.html

A high ranking general under Saddam claimed they shipped the WMD's to Syria. This is no small pawn, this is someone who's high up on Saddam's ladder.

 

[Aesir]

LoneJedi:
wasn't that reported back in 2002? in any case why didn't we check there as well? seems rather coincidental. Surely if our intelligence agency was right then they should have picked up on the fact they were smuggled into Syria, especially if it was reported back 2002.

Have they physically found the weapons? or is it just his word that they were transported?

John: I never claimed it was astronomical, I said it was an unjustified war Saddam was hardly a threat compared to Iran and North Korea. The cost of this war has been high both in monetary value and lives bush has been solely devoted to the war on terror rather then on the people he tries to protect.

 

[lonejedi]

LoneJedi:
wasn't that reported back in 2002? in any case why didn't we check there as well? seems rather coincidental. Surely if our intelligence agency was right then they should have picked up on the fact they were smuggled into Syria, especially if it was reported back 2002.

Have they physically found the weapons? or is it just his word that they were transported?

John: I never claimed it was astronomical, I said it was an unjustified war Saddam was hardly a threat compared to Iran and North Korea. The cost of this war has been high both in monetary value and lives bush has been solely devoted to the war on terror rather then on the people he tries to protect.

This was reported in 2006. How could we have checked there? The majority of U.S citizens at that point were already ticked off that we went into iraq and had found nothing. How was the president supposed to convince the people of the U.S, and most importantly congress to go check this out?

 

[Aesir]

I thought some news paper in London reported it earlier? In any case it really doesn't matter.

Reasons I'm skeptical.

1. He wasn't there during the actual transporting of the weapons. Sure he says "I know what they were" but that doesn't mean we should take his word for it at all.

2. The ones who did transport it have yet to come forward.


Until either of these two are resolved I doubt this will change anyone's mind.

 

[lonejedi]

I thought some news paper in London reported it earlier? In any case it really doesn't matter.

Reasons I'm skeptical.

1. He wasn't there during the actual transporting of the weapons. Sure he says "I know what they were" but that doesn't mean we should take his word for it at all.

2. The ones who did transport it have yet to come forward.


Until either of these two are resolved I doubt this will change anyone's mind.

This is my opinion, but I think this is true because the guy had the balls to come out and say this. Even though at the time Saddam was in capture, he could have easily had this guy killed. This guy wouldn't be saying something that would get him killed if it was just a lie.

 

[Aesir]

I don't see how, during this time he was captured like you said but he also had no outside contact at all. So unless he's a psychic I think he's probably making it up. After all this if true could seriously push Bush's reputation. It's just rather convenient so until it's looked into further I'm not buying and I don't think any free thinking person would.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Saddam Hussein intended to resume production of biological weapons when military sanctions were uplifted, and due to Operation Desert Fox, Iraq's ability to produce many biological weapons was degraded.

Saddam's chemical attacks list.

Haij Umran Mustard August 1983 fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish
Panjwin Mustard October-November 1983 3,001 Iranian/Kurdish
Majnoon Island Mustard February-March 1984 2,500 Iranians
al-Basrah Tabun March 1984 50-100 Iranians
Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun March 1985 3,000 Iranians
al-Faw Mustard & Tabun February 1986 8,000 to 10,000 Iranians
Um ar-Rasas Mustard December 1986 1,000s Iranians
al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun April 1987 5,000 Iranians
Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent October 1987 3,000 Iranians
Halabjah Mustard & nerve agent March 1988 7,000s Kurdish/Iranian
al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent April 1988 1,000s Iranians
Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent May 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent June 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
South-central border Mustard & nerve agent July 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
an-Najaf -
Karbala area Nerve agent & CS March 1991 Shi’a casualties not known

None of which is post-treaty...

Everybody knows he had WMDs before the treaty, and he was technically allowed to. The post Gulf-war agreement didn't allow him to have them.

The issue is whether he had them during the period of the invasion, not some time in the nebulous past.

As for intentions, how are they relevant? The treaty doesn't cover intentions.

 

[Kur]

I can not believe you guys still don't get it.

Just because we haven't found any WMDs does not mean that Bush was lying, or that there are none.

The best intelligence at the time said there were WMDs and Saddams history shows he was a big fan of making and using them. He refused the UNs attempts to go into Iraq and look around for OVER A YEAR.

What else were we supposed to think was going on? The best evidence lead us to believe there were WMDs so Bush acted. And congress let him by granting him the War Powers Resolution act. So not finding WMDs does not make Bush a lier, it just means he MIGHT have made a mistake.

And like I have said so many times before, any WMDs could be buried in some obscure cave or hole in the sand in the middle of all that lovely desert they have out there. It would be impossible to find some WMDs over there if they hid them somewhere.

So we haven't found any WMDs. Well, we already took out Saddam and his government. What would you rather we did? Just leave? Say "My bad dude, here is your country back, good luck restoring order, could you maybe not kill all the people that cheered when we tore your statue down?" No. We had to change the focus of the war to rebuild the country and establish a government that can handle the chaos caused by a situation like this. We tore it down, it is our responsibility to put it back up again. We can't just leave 30-50million people to whatever new dictator comes along.

And the UN is NOT some kind of world government. There is no law this country has to follow. We are only part of the UN as a courtesy to the rest of the world just as other countries are. If the UN wants to do something a country does not agree with, that country can leave, or go their own way, which is just what the US did when the UN was failing to get Saddam to let the inspectors in. International law, what a joke.

 

[SSBbo]

i think he doesn't deserve to be impeached, he can't do anything else wrong.
btw the iraq war isn't really a "war" it's the US trying to protect citizens from extremists.

and i'd rather have a super-warmonger that ***** away the country's rights than obama (i ran the numbers and all scenarios, obama will more than likely bring about the apocolypse, and i'll post my reasoning in an obama thread by the end of the month).

 

[whut?]

Bush took us to war via lies, then went against congress to go to war. Both are illegal. He completely and totally deserves to be impeached.

But, I forgot that when logic and reason come into the picture, you have to assume we listen to liberal media (as opposed to your laughable neo-conservative media). My bad for having an opinion.

wake up, bush is a puppet, he is a figurehead.
people disgust me when they say bush should be impeached,
when they know nothing about this government, 911 was planned long before it happened.
"TERRORIST" "TERROR" "WAR ON TERROR" its a fear campaign, you cant have a war without an enemy...
the word 'terrorist' is used to strike fear into the publics heart, it worked. So we had a justification for entering the middle east.
if you impeach bush you need to abolish government too.
its not going to happen, unless you people listen for once.
its ****ing ******** when people follow trends like this, bush hating.
artists make songs about it because its the "cool" thing to hate, the public is obsessed with trends, its brainwashing.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

i think he doesn't deserve to be impeached, he can't do anything else wrong.
btw the iraq war isn't really a "war" it's the US trying to protect citizens from extremists.

How does that make it "not war?" We invaded and used military force against another government, and subsequently militant factions. What kind of distorted definition of "war" are you using?

and i'd rather have a super-warmonger that ***** away the country's rights than obama (i ran the numbers and all scenarios, obama will more than likely bring about the apocolypse, and i'll post my reasoning in an obama thread by the end of the month).

I can't wait.

 

[pockyD]

In an overly simplistic view situation, I'd rather have wrongly invaded Iraq rather than have backed off and be incorrect

I don't buy the self-righteous present-day MMQ perspective when the situation really was that cloudy at the time, and the consequences so dire

 

[whut?]

and i'd rather have a super-warmonger that ***** away the country's rights than obama (i ran the numbers and all scenarios, obama will more than likely bring about the apocolypse, and i'll post my reasoning in an obama thread by the end of the month).

i think youd just rather have a super warmonger.
a black president wont bring the apocolypse..only racist bible thumpers think that.
War brings the apocolypse..we will destroy each other and the planet we ****.
its Scientific(not like that means anything) and has been predicted by the wisest humans,
Your reasoning is ridiculous, time will surely tell.
^_^

 

[Kur]

i think youd just rather have a super warmonger.
a black president wont bring the apocolypse..only racist bible thumpers think that.
War brings the apocolypse..we will destroy each other and the planet we ****.
its Scientific(not like that means anything) and has been predicted by the wisest humans,
Your reasoning is ridiculous, time will surely tell.
^_^

War is a natural part of this planet. Humans have been at war since before we were humans. Without war we would not have the freedoms we enjoy. Without war humans would likely have died out long before we invented the wheel. War is a necessary part of human survival, like it or not.

And SSBbo did not say anything about Obama being black. You, like so many liberals before you, just assume his race is why somebody doesn't like him. It is becoming impossible to criticize Obama without being labeled a racist.

I really can not fathom how people think McCain is a warmonger anyway. Just because he doesn't want to pull out of Iraq and leave it to be overtaken by whatever REAL warmonger comes along, does not make him a warmonger. It makes him logical. Something Obama is seriously lacking.

 

[Aesir]

Yeah guys America hates Dictators, well unless we like them then we'll endorse them...

Humanity hasn't been fighting each other since before we've been human that's a common misconception that I find horrible flawed. When humanity started as small hunter gatherer clans of roughly 20 people the chances of running into another clan was such a small chance.

Furthermore if they did chances are there wasn't a huge brawl broken out we weren't settlers we wandered. The fact that they didn't want a war simply because a war would have meant loss of hunting power, would literally meant if a clan survived or not.

There's no evidence that man always waged war with each other.the earliest signs of civilization, the neolithic era however makes mention of this with cave paintings indicating basic combat strategies.

However you could make a case for the neanderthal as some scientists believe we committed mass genocide against them.

 

[whut?]

War is a natural part of this planet. Humans have been at war since before we were humans. Without war we would not have the freedoms we enjoy. Without war humans would likely have died out long before we invented the wheel. War is a necessary part of human survival, like it or not.

And SSBbo did not say anything about Obama being black. You, like so many liberals before you, just assume his race is why somebody doesn't like him. It is becoming impossible to criticize Obama without being labeled a racist.

I really can not fathom how people think McCain is a warmonger anyway. Just because he doesn't want to pull out of Iraq and leave it to be overtaken by whatever REAL warmonger comes along, does not make him a warmonger. It makes him logical. Something Obama is seriously lacking.

WHAT? natural part of this planet? the planet has nothing to do with petty human disputes, Earth is a living breathing entity.
What the **** is natural about humanitys obsession with controlling each other? fighting is basic, but war is only natural to society, society is not natural.
& what i was referring to is the people who say obama is some antichrist because he isnt white..and spreading misconceptions about him,
not that i care, all the candidates are corrupt.
Dont say war is ever positive, it isnt. Sometimes we were forced into it, and sometimes we were the ones to start them for resources or conquest.
The end is nigh, Wars are waged because humanity knows that, humanity was doomed from the start.
Dont be afraid though, accept it, maybe the earths energy will carry on, and contribute to something that doesnt follow a selfdestructive pattern.


edit: please dont label me a "liberal" "conservative" or whatever, i have no 'side',
no matter what you say i side with no human political party or train of thought.
Also, people usually conspire against obama because he is of a different nationality, calling him the 'antichrist'
Thus creating the biblical apocalypse, this is where my statement on his nationality came into play, it is a wide conspiracy,
i do not support any candidates. The end will come whether obama dies next week or recieves 99% of the electorial vote.

 

[Kur]

WHAT? natural part of this planet? the planet has nothing to do with petty human disputes, Earth is a living breathing entity.
What the **** is natural about humanitys obsession with controlling each other? fighting is basic, but war is only natural to society, society is not natural.
& what i was referring to is the people who say obama is some antichrist because he isnt white..and spreading misconceptions about him,
not that i care, all the candidates are corrupt.
Dont say war is ever positive, it isnt. Sometimes we were forced into it, and sometimes we were the ones to start them for resources or conquest.
The end is nigh, Wars are waged because humanity knows that, humanity was doomed from the start.
Dont be afraid though, accept it, maybe the earths energy will carry on, and contribute to something that doesnt follow a selfdestructive pattern.


edit: please dont label me a "liberal" "conservative" or whatever, i have no 'side'

WHAT? The earth is a living breathing entity? Since when? Earth is a big ball of dirt, rotating around a bigger ball of hydrogen, rotating around what is probably a super massive singularity, just one of billions in the ever expanding universe.

The earth is not alive, it has no mind to think any opinion on the tiny things living on its surface. It has no will to cause any harm or benefit to anything. It is no more alive than a hand full of dirt you sweep off your door step, or a rock in your yard.

When I said that war is a natural part of the planet, I meant it is a natural part of the life on the planet. You can't claim that only humans have wars because there are territorial disputes in the animal kingdom that make WW2 look like a hippie peace gathering. Tribes of primates will tear each other apart fighting over a particular tree, or look out rock. Prides of lions will wipe each other out over hunting territory. and more often than not a reason is not needed, one group will kill another group just to avoid having to do it in the future. Humans are some peaceful beings in comparison. We just have better weapons.

And human war is almost never about controlling each other (anymore). War these days is fought over religious differences, protection, protection of others, eliminating a serious threat, and NEEDED natural resources. That last one is not any admission to the Iraq war being fought over oil. But even if it was, it would be a justified reason.

Society is not natural? Society evolved in every quasi-intelligent species on the planet. How is it not natural? Lions living in prides isn't natural? Come on now.

And war does have many positives. Without war how else would we have stopped Hitler? WE could have prevented war ans just surrendered to him, allow him to take over Europe and eventually the rest of the world, wiping out any race he deemed less than superior.

Yes, war is a violent, terrible, and often evil thing, but it is terribly naive to think that war can be forever eliminated, or that war is simply not necessary.

When you say you were referring to people who say Obama is the antichrist because he is black... Well that is not what you actually said. You said "a black president wont bring the apocolypse which seems to be a direct response to SSBbo saying "obama will more than likely bring about the apocolypse" It seems pretty cut and dry. You were assuming SSBbo does not support Obama because he is black, even though he never made any mention of race. YOU were the one to inject race into the issue.

And when did I call you a liberal? I said "like so many liberals before you". I was simply pointing out that in the instance of assuming people are racist for not supporting Obama, you are like a liberal.

And of course you have a side. You just don't know what it is. Myself, some 3-4 years ago claimed to not have a side as well. Then I began to look into what the 'sides' really represented and I found out that I agree more often with one side than I do the other. You will never agree 100% with anybody, but as long as you agree with one side even slightly more than the other, that is the side you are on. And that does not mean you are stuck there forever. It just means that for the time being, you are on that side. And just from the limited amount of information I have gathered from you, I would hazard a guess that you are likely to be more liberal than anything else. More information may show that to be wrong, but as you are presented to me now, you are a liberal.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

When I said that war is a natural part of the planet, I meant it is a natural part of the life on the planet. You can't claim that only humans have wars because there are territorial disputes in the animal kingdom that make WW2 look like a hippie peace gathering. Tribes of primates will tear each other apart fighting over a particular tree, or look out rock. Prides of lions will wipe each other out over hunting territory. and more often than not a reason is not needed, one group will kill another group just to avoid having to do it in the future. Humans are some peaceful beings in comparison. We just have better weapons.

Hmmm...sounds like you're repeating what he just said to me. And calm down. Seriously, you're way up-tight.

I'm pretty sure war is not a necessary thing to survive. That's an ironic statement, eh? Please explain how war is 'necessary' to survive, don't just say it is, because I really don't see how it's a necessary thing. It's something that can't be stopped, something that will inevitably occur as humans live, but it's not 'necessary'.

 

[Crimson King]

Kur, why are you arguing with "whut?" he pretty much discredited himself with:

wake up, bush is a puppet, he is a figurehead.
people disgust me when they say bush should be impeached,
when they know nothing about this government, 911 was planned long before it happened.
"TERRORIST" "TERROR" "WAR ON TERROR" its a fear campaign, you cant have a war without an enemy...
the word 'terrorist' is used to strike fear into the publics heart, it worked. So we had a justification for entering the middle east.
if you impeach bush you need to abolish government too.
its not going to happen, unless you people listen for once.
its ****ing ******** when people follow trends like this, bush hating.
artists make songs about it because its the "cool" thing to hate, the public is obsessed with trends, its brainwashing.

It's laughable enough that he thinks 9/11 was an inside job, but his entire argument makes no sense. He's against the government, but not against Bush... what?

 

[Kur]

Hmmm...sounds like you're repeating what he just said to me. And calm down. Seriously, you're way up-tight.

Ok, I really need to figure out how I am conveying emotion across the internet. People seem to think I am mad, uptight, angry, wound up, etc. when I am actually as calm as I could possibly be.


It would be beneficial to everybody who reads my posts to imagine the voice in your head in a light hearted or completely monotonous tone.

Seriously, I like debating, I am not uptight or angry.

 

[Caturdayz]

This is a bit off topic but I noticed you were talking about the "liberal" media... The "liberal" media is only as liberal as the massive corporations that own them, therefore the "liberal" media is a joke.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Hmmmm...very well, I'll take your word for it Kur. I suppose people come off differently on the internet than in reality, eh? My bad.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

I think as of July 2008, it's too late. If we wanted to impeach Bush, we should have done it a while ago.

 

[samdaballer]

I think as of July 2008, it's too late. If we wanted to impeach Bush, we should have done it a while ago.

I agree, and I am strongly against Bush, he has singlehandedly (OK, a little help from that prick cheney) made our economy crumble and to go to war with a country SOLELY due to oil

 

[marthanoob]

I agree, and I am strongly against Bush, he has singlehandedly (OK, a little help from that prick cheney) made our economy crumble and to go to war with a country SOLELY due to oil

I think you are putting too much blame on Bush and Cheney. Remember that the whole administration put troops into Iraq. That includes Karl Rove, Donald Rhumsfeld, them kicking Colin Powell out, and misinformed CIA, and the general fear factor in America (which the conservatives made sure to appeal to).

 

[blazedaces]

I agree, and I am strongly against Bush, he has singlehandedly (OK, a little help from that prick cheney) made our economy crumble and to go to war with a country SOLELY due to oil

Every time I hear this I want to punch something.

What evidence do you have that we went to war for oil? Seriously, one piece of evidence. One picture of us drilling for oil in Iraq. One bill written with the purpose of this war having been for oil. Even one iota of a clue that we're even at this moment moving towards drilling for oil in Iraq.

Do you actually think we would want to go to war, which costs gargantuan amounts of money, to try and somehow save money by drilling oil? Just think about this for two seconds. How stupid is this? Spend 5 trillion on going to war, save 5 billion on oil... WTF?

-blazed

 

[Crimson King]

The first people into Iraq were Haliburton contractors. Haliburton is an oil company, which **** Cheney owns stock in.

 

[blazedaces]

The first people into Iraq were Haliburton contractors. Haliburton is an oil company, which **** Cheney owns stock in.

Well, I'm going to shut up now.

I feel bad for not even doing some research before making that previous statement...

I have... and it's not pretty. Let's just say what I had imagined was the worst of our government isn't even close to the truth...

My bad,

-blazed

 

[samdaballer]

Every time I hear this I want to punch something.

What evidence do you have that we went to war for oil? Seriously, one piece of evidence. One picture of us drilling for oil in Iraq. One bill written with the purpose of this war having been for oil. Even one iota of a clue that we're even at this moment moving towards drilling for oil in Iraq.

Do you actually think we would want to go to war, which costs gargantuan amounts of money, to try and somehow save money by drilling oil? Just think about this for two seconds. How stupid is this? Spend 5 trillion on going to war, save 5 billion on oil... WTF?

-blazed

In this day and age, oil is the biggest business in the world.

The first people into Iraq were Haliburton contractors. Haliburton is an oil company, which **** Cheney owns stock in.

exactly, and its not a coincidence that 85% of all of the oil companies in iraq right now are of the U.S. and they all had the first picks of which oil deposits they wanted

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

The first people into Iraq were Haliburton contractors. Haliburton is an oil company, which **** Cheney owns stock in.

Theres something unsettling about the fact that the people in power have so much to gain by going into war.

Also, lol@teh censor

 

[Kur]

Oil again?

How many times do I have to say it?

We aren't getting a single drop of oil from Iraq because of this war. All of Iraqs oil was put into a trust to be given to the Iraqi people when the 'war' is over and their government is established.

Just because a company went to Iraq does not mean they are up to anything nasty. Halliburton was sent to Iraq to build and run military bases, build and repair oil wells and pipelines (for the Iraqis) and run several other rebuilding projects. As I said, any oil drilled in Iraq is put into a trust to bankroll the future Iraqi government.

It seems to me that if we were going to invade a country for oil, we would have gone to Iran. Would have made a lot more sense. Besides, we have plenty of oil in the US, we just need to drill for it.

 

[marthanoob]

We aren't getting a single drop of oil from Iraq because of this war. All of Iraq's oil was put into a trust to be given to the Iraqi people when the 'war' is over and their government is established.

That sounds to me like a good excuse. Does Iraq seriously need oil right now? They are going to sell it. And who else but us would be their main customer? *psst* (Do you mind giving us a "small" discount? We "liberated" your nation after all.)

Just because a company went to Iraq does not mean they are up to anything nasty. Halliburton was sent to Iraq to build and run military bases, build and repair oil wells and pipelines (for the Iraqis) and run several other rebuilding projects. As I said, any oil drilled in Iraq is put into a trust to bankroll the future Iraqi government.

The better question is, when have businesses not been up to anything nasty? Especially when they are getting poor media coverage.
And I suppose this pure coincidence that the company who's making the most profit off this war is one in which Cheney owns a large portion of? Their stock has risen incredibly.

It seems to me that if we were going to invade a country for oil, we would have gone to Iran. Would have made a lot more sense. Besides, we have plenty of oil in the US, we just need to drill for it.

Iran would have put up a far more solid defense considering that the country is absolutely not in chaos, there is more land to cover, negative OPEC negotiations would rip us apart, and we had not much reason other than the hostage crisis to invade it. Invading Iran is lunacy. We can't even invade countries in chaos properly like Vietnam and Iraq, how do we expect to invade Iran?

There is a debate going on about the oil tapping in Alaska. Looks like it takes too long to prepare, tap, and ship. We apparently need it here and now.

 

[Kur]

That sounds to me like a good excuse. Does Iraq seriously need oil right now? They are going to sell it. And who else but us would be their main customer? *psst* (Do you mind giving us a "small" discount? We "liberated" your nation after all.)

Of course Iraq needs oil. It is basically the only product they have. How else would they drive an economy? And of course America would try to get a discount. And if Iraq decides to give us a discount great! But do you really think we are going to recoup the expenses of this 'war' by getting 5% off on probably less than 10% of our future oil supply?

The better question is, when have businesses not been up to anything nasty? Especially when they are getting poor media coverage.
And I suppose this pure coincidence that the company who's making the most profit off this war is one in which Cheney owns a large portion of? Their stock has risen incredibly.

Really? A country bankrolled by the government to help run a war, has seen its stocks rise? And the vice president, who worked successfully with the company during the Iraq war of the early 90's suggested using the company again? Will wonders ever cease?

Seriously, just because a business is big, does not make it evil. Of course you could name a few that have done nasty things, Enron, etc. But it is no different than small business, or even individuals. In a given group, most are good, and some are bad. It is just the way it works. How many hundreds, or thousands of big businesses are there that you have never heard of, because they aren't doing evil things or have a vice president investor? So until you have some REAL evidence that Halliburton is doing nasty things, why would you just assume they are?

The truth is that big businesses are owned by people. If you have a retirement plan, a 401K, a mutual fund, own stock, or any number of other investments, you probably own shares of several big businesses. Any profits they make go to the people who own a share. Without big business, more than half the people in this country would be broke, or have to work the rest of their lives because they can't retire.

Iran would have put up a far more solid defense considering that the country is absolutely not in chaos, there is more land to cover, negative OPEC negotiations would rip us apart, and we had not much reason other than the hostage crisis to invade it. Invading Iran is lunacy. We can't even invade countries in chaos properly like Vietnam and Iraq, how do we expect to invade Iran?

Not in chaos? Iran has an 'admitted' unemployment rate of over 10% (experts think it is closer to 25%) and an 'admitted' annual inflation rate of 20% (experts think it is actually over 40%) With the sanctions put on Iran by other countries, the only thing they can export is oil and they have to import gas because they don't have their own refineries.

Vietnam was a mess because of hippie liberal protesters and their puppets in congress. Vietnam could have been won in less than a year had everybody just let the military do what needed to be done. Vietnam was underfunded, didn't have nearly enough soldiers, and was an uphill fight against our own people. It had nothing to do with the North Vietnamese.

And just exactly how are we losing Iraq? We already won in Iraq. The 'war' is over. Right now we are just establishing a military and a government and fighting off insurgents. The actual 'invasion' was over a long time ago.

Did you know the last remnants of Saddams nuclear program (including a large stockpile of 'yellowcake') were shipped out of Iraq recently. The shipment landed in a port in Canada on Saturday. The Iraqi government (that we are successfully building) sold the uranium to Canada to be used for energy.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5314609

Wait... Saddam had a nuclear program? He had 550 metric tons of natural 'yellowcake' uranium, the seed material for weapons grade uranium cores? But I thought the UN inspectors said there wasn't anything like that in Iraq? No WMDs, no nuclear program, nothing. Huh.

There is a debate going on about the oil tapping in Alaska. Looks like it takes too long to prepare, tap, and ship. We apparently need it here and now.

There certainly is. And yes, it will take a while. But here is what Obama and the media aren't telling you.

If the US announced tomorrow that it will drill in Alaska for sure, the price of oil would drop over night. Just knowing the US will supply that much oil in the future is enough to drop the price in the world free market oil trade. It relieves the concern over oil supply shortages.

And really, who cares if it takes 5 years, or 10 years? Why bother going to college? You won't get the benefits of it for a long time. Why bother exercising? You won't look like Brad Pitt for a long time.

You have to start some time. The sooner the better. "But it won't be here for another 10 years!" Was Billdo Clintons excuse. If we had started drilling then, we would be complaining about $2.00 gas now.

The real concern people have with drilling in Alaska is the caribou. Nobody wants to interrupt the migration pattern of the caribou.

Well the Area of Alaska we want to drill in is 19,000,000 acres. The drilling facility will occupy just over 2000 acres. If the caribo

 

[blazedaces]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5314609

Wait... Saddam had a nuclear program? He had 550 metric tons of natural 'yellowcake' uranium, the seed material for weapons grade uranium cores? But I thought the UN inspectors said there wasn't anything like that in Iraq? No WMDs, no nuclear program, nothing. Huh.

Read... your own... articles:

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers [highlight]since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991[/highlight], the official said.

 

[Kur]

Read... your own... articles:

I did read it.

No evidence of yellow cake after 1991 'the official' said. What official? No name is given. They don't even say what this official is an official of.

This story is from the AP, an organization widely known for its liberal bias. It is partially the fault of the AP that polar bears are now an endangered species even though there are 5 times more of them now than 25 years ago. I don't trust the AP to tell the truth about much of anything. I only linked this article to show that the yellowcake was in Iraq.

The point is that the yellowcake was in Iraq, under Saddams control. Just because the UN came in and put it in safer barrels means nothing. If you would care to read further in the article, it mentions some devices also stored at the site that could be used to create weapons. How much do you want to bet they were put there AFTER the UN left in 1991?

And there is also the claims that Saddam tried to purchase more yellowcake from Niger, after 1991.

If the UN inspectors really did their job, they would have looked at the known stockpiles of yellowcake that they left in Iraq and found the devices stored with it. Coming back and saying 'We found no evidence of any WMD programs" would be a lie if they did look into that known stockpile. If they didn't look, then they were just being severely irresponsible.