An interesting read on the Middle East and OIL - Page 15 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

peragro · #**211** 03-16-2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Not purposely obtuse? You aren't doing this on purpose? Damn.

That was my thought too. Without the "damn" though. That part of the equation became apparent to me a long time ago.

Honus · #**212** 03-16-2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

There is also no debate that he was trying to block inspectors...

The key word in that sentence is "trying". There were methods available to forcibly complete the inspections without starting a war.

Quote:

At that point, we could not be sure that we wouldn't get into another 911 with the WMD from Saddam.

That is not true. Never was, never will be, no matter how many times it is repeated.

Quote:

It was just a chance we couldn't take.

And I suppose the risk of a botched war was a better gamble.

Quote:

Now, knowing what we know now, it was pointless since we were trying to shut the barn after the animals had already run off. But hindsight is 20/20

It's not hindsight when people in a position to know said at the time that Saddam was not a threat.

Of all the theories that have been offered to explain Bush's decision to invade when he did, the only one that is supported by the evidence known to the public is that Bush saw that the inspections were starting to work. If he waited, the inspections would have made public what Bush already knew - that Saddam was not a threat. I don't know why Bush wanted this war so bad. Maybe he sincerely thought that it was necessary for our national well being, but I will never believe that he has been honest about it.

Honus · #**213** 03-16-2008, 06:01 PM

From http://thinkprogress.org :

Quote:

One Year Later, Market Where McCain Strolled ‘Freely’ Is Controlled By Sadr, Too Unsafe For Americans To Visit»

On April 1, 2007, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) strolled through the open-air Shorja market in Baghdad in an effort to prove that Americans are “not getting the full picture” of what’s going on in Iraq. In a press conference after his Baghdad tour, McCain told a reporter that his visit to the market was proof that people could “walk freely” in parts of Baghdad.

What McCain failed to mention was that he was accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” He also appeared to be wearing a bulletproof vest during his visit.

Since that trip, McCain has claimed that the situation in Iraq has improved even more. A few months ago, McCain claimed that “we’ve succeeded militarily” in Iraq. Things, of course, are going so well, that he wants to keep U.S. troops there for at least 100 years.

McCain is now back in Iraq for a “surprise visit with Iraqi and American diplomatic and military leaders.” He is joined by fellow Iraq war defenders Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). But it’s unlikely they will be visiting the Shorja market again. Today, CNN reported that they tried to visit the Shorja market, but it was too unsafe and they were unable to go:

We got close to that marketplace today, Jim, but our own security advisers here in Iraq did not want us to go there. They didn’t believe it was safe for an American to be in that area. We were in a thriving marketplace nearby.

But when you show up, the local Iraqis, while it is clear security is better on the street — it is clear there are more markets open, just the traffic jams alone tell you that things are better on the streets of Baghdad — it’s also a very sensitive potential neighborhoods.

That one marketplace, as a matter of fact, you do see Iraqi police, you do see the Iraqi army, but in truth, that area is controlled by the radical cleric Moqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi army.

Civilian deaths per day in Iraq are up to 39 from a low of 20 last January, while at the same time, there has been “a sharp increase in attacks resulting in the deaths of U.S. soldiers.” Twelve Americans were killed last week over a period of four days, “bringing the overall U.S. military death toll since the start of the war near 4,000.”

The Associated Press recently interviewed Iraqis who “said they were not necessarily changing their daily routines,” but “the growing bloodshed was present in their minds, clouding what had until recently been a more hopeful time.”

[emphasis added]

Last year I thought that McCain's statement that he wanted to show that people could "walk freely" in Baghdad would have been enough to end any shot he had at getting nominated. I guess I was wrong.

aklim · #**214** 03-16-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Again you're judging an entire country based on a few radicals on the streets. Radicals always make noise about something they don't like, while the reasonable majority tends to be quiet. That doesn't mean they condone anything in particular.

So you expect me to believe that the "reasonable majority" is being quiet in this case but in other cases, can be provoked to making protests, suing, etc, etc?

aklim · #**215** 03-16-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

No I am not saying that Saddam never had WMDs
It is obvious he did, just look at the dead Kurds.

But we have never found any WMDs that he supposedly had

If he had all of these WMDs why cant the military find any.

And we were supposed to know for sure he had them before we went in.

So he had them. OK

So? Are you contradicting yourself by saying it was WMD he "supposedly" had? Are you doubting he had it?

You are saying again that if we can't find it, it never existed? Is it not possible that during his shell games, he has already moved it out of country? That seems to be the only logical explanation. WMD went in and is not there. Either it never went in or it is all used or it has been moved out of country. Since we know it isn't the first 2, that kinda narrows it down to it being moved. IOW, we went in too late.

We knew they were there. At this point, we don't know where it is and there is no explanation coming forth. We probably went in too late.

RichC · #**216** 03-16-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

What you are missing is extraordinarily important bits of knowledge that provide the opportunity for an informed opinion.

The efficacy of antibiotics is tested by infusing sterile disks of thin paper with the antibiotic and placing the disks in containers that grow the disease-causing bacterium to be tested. If the disease dies within a certain distance of the disk within some time period then the antibiotic passes the test.

Now can you name some bacterial diseases of livestock for which antibiotics might be useful?

Concerning acetylcholinesterase inhibiters, these chemicals work by disrupting the transmission of nerve impulses across the synapses -- the connections between nerve cells. Acylcholinesterase works to essentially relax the nerve after it has been stimulated. It is like a reset switch. Organophosphate chemicals inhibit acylcholinesterase -- in the presence of organophosphates, once stimulated the nerve cannot relax. Many household and garden insecticides are organophosphates like malathion, for example. Others are extremely powerful and are only used under license on farms, like guthion. Onel feature of organophosphates is that they oxidize rapidly on exposure -- they don't persist in the environment and on decomposition, the phosphate acts as a plant fertilizer.

As you can imagine, these 2 agricultural technologies are extremely valuable and are highly sought after by nations with agricultural interests (all countries on planet Earth). Maintenance of the facilities requires a highly educated workforce.

Are you with me on this so far?

B

yes

aklim · #**217** 03-16-2008, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

The key word in that sentence is "trying". There were methods available to forcibly complete the inspections without starting a war.

That is not true. Never was, never will be, no matter how many times it is repeated.

And I suppose the risk of a botched war was a better gamble.

It's not hindsight when people in a position to know said at the time that Saddam was not a threat.

the only one that is supported by the evidence known to the public is that Bush saw that the inspections were starting to work. If he waited, the inspections would have made public what Bush already knew - that Saddam was not a threat.

Such as? Business as usual like the last 10 years? Write another resolution?

How so? Can you guarantee that it will not happen? I can't.

I tend to think it was a gamble. Granted it didn't go as well as we hoped but I didn't think it was that dicey at the time.

What makes those people's point so valid? There were others who disagreed with them. Yes, once it unfolds, we know which side was right. At that time, who could say for sure.

Starting to work as in what? Like the last 10 years? They have been starting to work and then something comes up. Start again and something comes up. They have been "starting to work" for 10 years when it should have started to work at the end of the gulf war. There were dozens of resolutions that indicated it was "starting to work" too.

RichC · #**218** 03-16-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

So he had them. OK

So? Are you contradicting yourself by saying it was WMD he "supposedly" had? Are you doubting he had it?

You are saying again that if we can't find it, it never existed? Is it not possible that during his shell games, he has already moved it out of country? That seems to be the only logical explanation. WMD went in and is not there. Either it never went in or it is all used or it has been moved out of country. Since we know it isn't the first 2, that kinda narrows it down to it being moved. IOW, we went in too late.

We knew they were there. At this point, we don't know where it is and there is no explanation coming forth. We probably went in too late.

He used what he had, and had no more.

Prove he had anyting left.

aklim · #**219** 03-16-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

He used what he had, and had no more.

Prove he had anyting left.

How do you know that for sure? Did he say so or even provide proof that he did?

Wasn't that HIS job to prove that he had nothing left? The job he obstructed at every turn?

RichC · #**220** 03-16-2008, 08:31 PM

.

I am finished with this argument.

A thanks to everyone that called me obtuse.
Have a nice day.

Go dig up some of the stuff had,
that will be proof he had it.

I can never prove he had nothing.

Neither one of us can prove anything.
One way or the other.

.

RichC · #**221** 03-16-2008, 08:44 PM

.

Anywhay I am about to be suspended.

I asked that Brian Carlton do something about you guys
calling me obtuse.

Since I cant even ask someone to go away and leave me alone
without getting an infraction.

And he would not.

See you guys later.
Love you all

RichC

.

Honus · #**222** 03-16-2008, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Such as? Business as usual like the last 10 years? Write another resolution?...

Of course not.

Are you saying that the only options in 2003 were: (a) business as usual or (b) war? Something in between would have made sense to me.

aklim · #**223** 03-16-2008, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

I can never prove he had nothing.

Neither one of us can prove anything.
One way or the other.

.

I don't doubt that since it is already known facts.

The UN did prove he had precursors and WMD. He was supposed to prove he used them or present them for destruction.

aklim · #**224** 03-16-2008, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

Since I cant even ask someone to go away and leave me alone without getting an infraction.

You can hit the "ignore" button.

aklim · #**225** 03-16-2008, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Are you saying that the only options in 2003 were: (a) business as usual or (b) war? Something in between would have made sense to me.

If this was his first time, I would agree with you. However, it is certainly not his first time. He has been doing this again and again. If someone bounces a check, you can kinda look past and figure it was an "oopsie". However, what do you say if the guy keeps bouncing checks? Maybe at some point, businesses don't want to take his check anymore and do you blame them?