Quote :

"now show me proof why this was a war for oil. you have no proof. you people are sad leeches who prey on those you see as easy targets (outspoken conservatives) while NEVER PROVIDING CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE YOURSELF to support your claims (such as "war for oil"). My proof is in the intel we had in the leadup to the war, you all should remember that if you watched the news (im talking CBS and ABC, not Newsmax, you morons). what proof do you have for your stance, aside from your "well, we love oil and they have oill and they never had any proof of wmds even though all the intel said so, even if it was wrong, which we couldnt have known, durrrr" nonsense?"

Because we did it in the past. Gulf War I-oil, attempted Coup in Venezuela-oil, reinstating the shah-oil, etc. etc. etc. etc.

America has a vested interest in maintaining a secure oil source and the best way to do that without getting us off petroleum's teat is through war. The West has continually used superior force to insure its best interests. It did it in Africa through colonialism. Wars are fought over resources, not aethereal ideals of freedom.

This isn't esoteric knowledge reserved for only a select few. This is knowledge everyone should know. Oil has supplanted rubber from the 19th century. Soon it will no longer be petroleum but something else. The Roman empire expanded to gain more wealth. Western Europe fought over land throughout the middle ages. The whole idea that we fight wars over resources is coëval with war. I don't understand why this concept is anathema to you.

10/4/2006 3:41:03 AM

Thinking we went there for oil is just stupid. Even if we nationalized all their oil and used it ourselves, we'd barely be covering costs of the war. We would have simply been better off drilling in Alaska (the state we bought for resources) or developing some fuel-saving technologies with the money.

We invaded Iraq because our top intelligence officers including Bush thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. To a lesser extent, we're also there because it was a convenient target to put a name on the face of the war. After Afghanistan wen't so well (its turning around now) he thought he could start a regional chain-reaction by invading Iraq as well. Was it a mistake? Only time will tell. I mean, it looks like a mistake now, but in 10 or 20 years Iraqis may look at this as the birth pains of prosperity. Or they'll look at it as the worst thing to happen since Saddam took power. We'll see eventually.

Quote :

"Because we did it in the past. Gulf War I-oil,"

Oh, and I guess WWII was about sourkraut...You know G-I was about stopping a dictator from invading another country. The fact that they are oil rich doesn't mean we aren't allowed to stop invasions. You let almost any country on this planet invade another and you'll see us in ass-kicking position. Especially if it is an ally.

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 7:22 AM. Reason : WTF IS THIS MORON?]

10/4/2006 7:21:08 AM

wow

10/4/2006 7:22:24 AM

Quote :

"You know G-I was about stopping a dictator from invading another country."

If that's a good enough reason in and of itself to invade a country, why are we not occupying 75% of Africa?

I'm fairly certain it was a Bush Sr. staff guy who said "let's face it, if Iraq's main export was carrots, we wouldn't have been there."

10/4/2006 11:06:46 AM

Some of you people are pretty goddamn stupid.

Boettcher and Greene are both politically liberal. They both admit they are politically liberal, and you can tell it in their teaching style. But if you're a halfway intelligent person who's less pliable than chewing gum, it won't influence you at all. I've certainly never had either one treat me or my grade detrimentally for putting forward any kind of conservative bias, as long as I supported it -- just like they do.

I've really enjoyed all of my poli sci classes, and really liked all the professors, but actually I might have to say Greene was my favorite. He could be a little condescending at times, but only to stupid people regardless of party affiliation.

And Boettcher is obviously a liberal, but he's a hawkish self-proclaimed "bombs and guns" liberal.

Quote :

"If you are refering to David Greene he's pretty much retired."

No, they meant Stephen Greene. I'm surprised David is still fucking breathing.

Quote :

"who cares? he's a screaming liberal, he needs all the reality checks he can get."

You don't even know which fucking Greene you're talking about, and you're ready to tar and feather him. Congratulations, you really are the reason I left the fucking party, you goddamn witch trial loving, can't-see-beyond-the-end-of-your-own-microphallus piece of shit.

Quote :

"Sounds like a pretty crappily done survey to me. How do they expect someone to pick a number of people that can die for something to be acceptable?"

The question is supposed to highlight casualty aversion, and it was far from the only one in the survey. They had several open-ended questions at the end that aren't quite as statistically useful, but still show some interesting trends.

For example, he was saying that a full 7% of respondents answered, when asked why we went to Iraq, "Because Bush is an idiot." Specifically that sentence (though perhaps with a synonym for "idiot")

10/4/2006 11:21:22 AM

I had Boettcher and liked him a lot.

In one of my papers he actually called me out for just echoing his opinions. He clearly had no interest in preaching his views.

10/4/2006 11:31:16 AM

"If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it's the truth" - Joseph Goebbles

You people are playing right into this. I have no concerns for people like you though, you'll fail soon enough. Keep believing Official Liberal Truth #1552: We are at war in Iraq for oil. You only make yourselves look stupid.

We are not in Iraq for oil. That is a fact.

As for those other wars mentioned: The Shah was helped as a combatant against Soviet influnence in the region, the coup in venezuela was never proven to be done by the us, and Gulf War I was a international effort to get Saddam out of Kuwait, a country important to the rest of the world for oil. Ok, based on that one war, you want to assume that this one is for the same. bgmins already summed this argument up, as did i. you people wont even believe the mainstream media, wow, you really are too far left for your own good.

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2006 11:39:51 AM

i don't think that we went to war for oil (solely) though i know we wouldn't have (and don't) give two shits about similar situations in oil-free areas around the world. but it's far more complicated than that. the reason that the region is so screwed up is mostly because of oil and the fact that the west split them up arbitrarily between 50 and 100 years ago.

maybe if you didn't automatically assume that everyone with different opinions than you was an irrational idiot, you would get more respect.

10/4/2006 11:47:45 AM

Quote :

"You know G-I was about stopping a dictator from invading another country. The fact that they are oil rich doesn't mean we aren't allowed to stop invasions. You let almost any country on this planet invade another and you'll see us in ass-kicking position. Especially if it is an ally."

Kuwait was slant drilling Iraqi oil. That's why Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Quote :

"Thinking we went there for oil is just stupid. Even if we nationalized all their oil and used it ourselves, we'd barely be covering costs of the war. We would have simply been better off drilling in Alaska (the state we bought for resources) or developing some fuel-saving technologies with the money."

the oil in Alaska is of poor quality. It is used primarily in creating asphalt and other products like that because it is extremely tarry.

Quote :

"We invaded Iraq because our top intelligence officers including Bush thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. To a lesser extent, we're also there because it was a convenient target to put a name on the face of the war. After Afghanistan wen't so well (its turning around now) he thought he could start a regional chain-reaction by invading Iraq as well. Was it a mistake? Only time will tell. I mean, it looks like a mistake now, but in 10 or 20 years Iraqis may look at this as the birth pains of prosperity. Or they'll look at it as the worst thing to happen since Saddam took power. We'll see eventually."

There was no evidence of WMDs. We had no smoking gun, and other countries intelligence services disagreed with our cooked intelligence.

Quote :

"Oh, and I guess WWII was about sourkraut..."

WWII was about land. Germany was concerned about spreading its land claims and other countries were not so keen on giving up their land.

Quote :

"We are not in Iraq for oil. That is a fact."

Based upon what you have said then why didn't we go into a plethora of other states that have known terrorist organizations functioning out of them. The Phlillipines has a terrorist organization that is responsible for piracy, why didn't we go there?

Quote :

"The Shah was helped as a combatant against Soviet influnence in the region,"

the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was instrumental in coordinating the coup to remove a democratically elected government. If it was truly about the soviet influence, why didn't we go into Mexico after Mexico nationalized its oil fields. Why not go into Norway who has also nationalized its oil fields?

Quote :

"the coup in venezuela was never proven to be done by the us,"

The coup in Venezuela is the calling card of Elliot Abrams. Just because you think the world is out to get you doesn't mean the world isn't out to get you.


I still cannot figure out why you are denying the fact that countries go to war over resources. All war are fought over one resource or another. Whether it is land, gold, or any other liquid or nonliquid asset.

10/4/2006 1:03:50 PM

Quote :

"now show me proof why this was a war for oil. you have no proof."

I never said that it was. I believed it was about oil in all the lead up to the war in late 02 and early 03, and even a little ways through the war; but the more I consider this opinion, I realize that it isin't valid. Think about this, in March 03 when I was a young lad at the age of 16 with my liberty spikes, and having just had my license for 3 months, I was paying 1.28 for regular unleaded in my car. Fast forward 3.5 years later, Im paying 2.56 for premium to fill up my car, twice as much. This is really why I dont believe the oil argument. Thats not to say I agree with the war in any sense or fashion, in fact, I believe it is one of the largest military and foreign policy blunders in all of history, not to mention on of the top 5 lies to the public of all time. Ive pondered long and hard at the question of why we ever even went to Iraq, and why the hell we are still there, and Im at a loss really, Ive ruled out oil, WMD was COMPLETE bullshit, and the hostile dictator thing, if any of the right-wingers on here really believe that, you are a sad sad person, who needs to enter the real world *Randy*. Really, there is no real apparent reason for this continued squander of money and disrespect towards our military by sending them to their deaths or permanent physical or psychological dispair.

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 4:16 PM. Reason : 6]

10/4/2006 4:15:27 PM

Quote :

"Oh, and I guess WWII was about sourkraut"

Actually, since we're on the topic of wars for oil, you could make the case that the US' oil embargo on Japan sparked off WW2--or rather, US involvement in it.

10/4/2006 6:34:37 PM

It'd be an extremely easy case to make.

10/4/2006 6:36:05 PM

10/4/2006 6:42:57 PM

1. It is. In both the human and monetary sense.

2. It was, but no moreso than Sudan or a dozen other countries. Certainly not worth the human and monetary costs.

3. Was that poster made in 1988?

10/4/2006 6:49:02 PM

can you liberals please stop claiming to be so "compassionate" and "understanding" and admit you're just as selfish, even more selfish than those you demonize as the evil ones in the world (namely, those who favored this war and saw a threat).

10/4/2006 6:51:05 PM

I'm all about going into the Sudan

But there's no oil there, so I guess it's a no-go

10/4/2006 6:52:55 PM

are they a threat to the rest of the world?

do we have intelligence saying they have WMDs?

10/4/2006 6:53:51 PM

I'm sure Bush could cook some up for the UN in no time.

10/4/2006 6:55:00 PM

right, prove that he did so and ill give you a cookie

if sudan is so important to you compassionate liberals, then why isnt there a UN force or European force in there right now?

10/4/2006 6:56:03 PM

1. Hey, where's that Nigerian uranium? Have we found that yet?

2. They're working that out

10/4/2006 6:58:59 PM

^nigerean, not nigerian.

10/4/2006 7:02:08 PM

Would you please refrain from using racial slurs?

10/4/2006 7:04:23 PM

you wont listen, but:

Quote :

" In its May 22, 2004 edition, the New York Times confirmed a myriad of reports on Saddam's nuclear fuel stockpile - and revealed a chilling detail unknown to weapons inspectors before the war: that Saddam had begun to partially enrich his uranium stash. The Times noted: "The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, . . . . holds more than 500 tons of uranium . . . . Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium." Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that "the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.""

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/220331.shtml

insult the messenger all you want, but here's your boys at the NY Times saying this.

10/4/2006 7:06:22 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/

eat that

10/4/2006 7:09:02 PM

Quote :

"Newsmax"

Quote :

"The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel."

gg

10/4/2006 7:11:06 PM

n its May 22, 2004 edition, the New York Times confirmed a myriad of reports on Saddam's nuclear fuel stockpile

10/4/2006 7:14:03 PM

WMD

this has been established 24096 times

10/4/2006 7:15:28 PM

Quote :

"Newsmax"

I'd ask for the actual article, but I just found a description of it. It's the article where they publicly apologized for not taking the Bush administration to task on its WMD claims

gg


[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 7:22 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2006 7:16:28 PM

THE NEW YORK TIMES

CONFIRMED

SADDAM HUSSEIN (dictator of Iraq, just so you know)

HAD URANIUM (this being the material necessary to make nuclear arms)

now ill help you draw the conclusion here: what was he going to do with that uranium? was he going to

a) build a house
b) make energy
c) follow his trend of ruthlessness and seek to develop nuclear weapons

THINK, MAN

Sarin gas shells found on the road to Baghdad, what were those for? Killing bugs?

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 7:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2006 7:20:24 PM

Link?

Hey! I'm a legitimate news organization!








[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 7:35 PM. Reason : s]

10/4/2006 7:23:26 PM

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 7:25 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2006 7:25:14 PM

If you're not going to show me credible evidence of any post-1991 WMD activity, then just stop trying.




btw, this one's my favorite:



Learn to memorize things, just like the alzheimer's case and Mr. Misunderestimate himself.

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 7:29 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2006 7:27:36 PM

THIS MAN IS MY HERO


is that randy?

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 7:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2006 7:31:03 PM

All my NCSU PolySci professors told me that this man is the greatest political thinker of all time. I tend to agree. Thoughts?

10/4/2006 7:33:49 PM

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1171176/posts
PROOF OF MARXIST CONTROL OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

10/4/2006 7:33:58 PM

10/4/2006 7:35:52 PM

now youre ignoring the facts and arguments in favor of trolling.

fact still stands: saddam had uranium

now get back to posting pictures of your heros

10/4/2006 7:36:26 PM

WHITE RACISTS FOR LIBERALISM

10/4/2006 7:39:18 PM

Saddam had uranium (in 1988)

10/4/2006 7:40:17 PM

Quote :

"In its May 22, 2004 edition, the New York Times confirmed a myriad of reports on Saddam's nuclear fuel stockpile - and revealed a chilling detail unknown to weapons inspectors before the war: that Saddam had begun to partially enrich his uranium stash. The Times noted: "The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, . . . . holds more than 500 tons of uranium . . . . Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium." Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that "the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions."""

10/4/2006 7:41:34 PM

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 7:44 PM. Reason : /.]

10/4/2006 7:44:18 PM

Quote :

"News"

Quote :

"max"

10/4/2006 7:47:25 PM

Quote :

"New York Times"

I'm through with you, kid.

10/4/2006 7:48:21 PM

I've yet to see a NY Times article

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 7:58 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2006 7:56:26 PM

Saddam had uranium?

this is like beating the shit out of the skinny kid with glasses in middle school to make ourselves feel better.

oh and im only compationate when it doesnt end up killing millions of civilians for no positive outcome.

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 8:02 PM. Reason : THE NY TIMES IS A LIBERAL POOL OF SHIT...UNTILL I AGREE WITH IT!!!]

10/4/2006 8:02:25 PM

omfg.

unintentional humor....the most supreme kind...its what heaven will be like

10/4/2006 8:10:36 PM

I'm starting to think it must've been intentional

Some douche snakeoil salesman hired a college student to make his ad. The college kid had a sense of humor, and thus we have



Bush: Recall names
Reagan: Remember speeches
Bob Dole: Stand upright on stages
Bush Sr.: Fight your upset stomach when meeting with important people

[Edited on October 4, 2006 at 8:20 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2006 8:20:23 PM

Ford: doesnt fall over alot

10/4/2006 8:21:16 PM