War unleashed...

[Femme Stab Mode >:D]

The prices on oil didn't suit US, so they needed an armed conflict in an oil-rich country to change the oil prices.  The prices did change, and if you watch the stock market, the war did give the US economy a boost.

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

Oh yeah here's that proof you wanted: http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn04232003.html

http://www.fingaz.co.zw/fingaz/2003/April/April24/3632.shtml

http://www.irna.com/en/head/030420110142.ehe.shtml

http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030420013755.f36w5rwx.html

[DGMacphee from work]

Hi again Bob, and welcome again -- it's good to have a different opinion on this board.

Here are a few points to think about as a counter to your arguement.

As I was saying, we shouldn't get into every little conflict around the world. I realize that every death is a horrible event, and 200 is worse. But over the course of his regime, Saddam Hussein has killed over one million people.

And how many people do you think the Bush family has killed?

Total the number of people killed in Texas executions, plus the number of people who commit suicide from being out of work due to corperate downsizing (due to the Bush family's tax breaks), plus the number of people murdered because the both Bushes' haven't done a thing to regulate guns, plus the number of civillians killed in wars with Bush (George and George W) interference, plus the number of people that the CIA have killed (god knows how many) during both Bushes' presidency.

But it's only the deaths that you hear about that count, right?

Not the ones that are hidden away from mainstream media.

Saddam isn't the only dictator in the world.

The Bush and his family are dictators of a different kind -- corporate dictators.

Think of not only these deaths, but how many more deaths could of been avoided if the League of Nations had enforced the treaty of Versailles when Hitler broke it. That's why the League of Nations had it's credibility destroyed: because it did not enforce it's treaties.
I'm starting to see some parallels, here.
Also, what's with all the stuff about the US fighting the war for Iraq's oil?

While you're on the subject of parallels, remember Panama?

There's more in common with the latest Iraqi war and Panama than there is with WWII.

Just replace "Noriega" with "Saddam", and "drugs" with "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Oh yeah -- And add a "W" in the President's name.

Weren't the US trying to liberate Panama's civilians from Noriega, even though they murdered 4,000 of them -- some even after Noriega had fled?

First off, the US army put out the oil fires. It was the Iraqi troops, under command of Saddam, who lit them on fire. Same thing happened in the first Gulf war, if you'll remember. And I'd like to clear this up: Are we taking oil from the wells? No. Are we taking the oil for ourself? No.
The Iraqi government and people are going to be profiting from the oil.

See ._. (OTG)'s comments.

You all make it sound like we're going to own Iraq, rather than helping them set up a democracy. Listen. We're not going to build oil wells and steal all of Iraq's oil for ourselves. The oil wells will be a source of revenue for the new, free Iraq. I can assure you that we won't take one drop of their oil. If you continue to argue that this war is about oil, i demand to see solid facts.
I could go into the links between Saddam and terrorist organizations, but I need to get some sleep, so I'll go into that later.

So far they've only been able to find one terrorist hiding in Iraq -- and his big claim to fame was hijacking a large boat in the 80s.

Think about this: Why doesn't the US focus on finding Osama, who was supposed to have caused the 9/11 attacks, which started this whole mess?

And speaking of a new, free Iraq -- How can Iraq be truely free if their hospitals are bombed, there's no electricity, the whole city has been looted, and everybody's businesses have been blown away?

Look at Afghanistan -- the UN estimated it would take $10 billion to rebuild the country, yet Bush has only spared $650 million.

How is the US Government supposed to rebuild Iraq when they can't even spare cash for Afghanistan.

In fact, how is the US supposed to provide international aid when they can't even provide national aid?

Experts say there are parts in the US that resemble third-world countries -- There's no business of commerce because most companies have packed up their factories and shifted them overseas becasue of cheap labour.

And ._. (OTG) has provided the evidence you needed that the war was about oil (among other seedy things).

[Grog_boy]

Great points CGMacphee....  Everything that you said is true, just another thing for the oil issue... The US said that would accept oil as a form of payment for reconstruct the Iraqui.... That's total nonsense!!!!! The destroy and then charge to rebuild... I think that's all I have to say...

Except:

Experts say there are parts in the US that resemble third-world countries -- There's no business of commerce because most companies have packed up their factories and shifted them overseas becasue of cheap labour.

HEY! I live in a third world country!! I want respect!!!! haha  

[DGMacphee]

Which country, Grog-Boy?

(BTW, I'm only going on what I've studied and I respect the civillians of all third-world countries. But judging from your smiley at the end of your comment, you already knew that, didn't you? )

[Bob The Hun]

On the whole war being about oil:
Why would Bush go to the trouble of invading another country just for oil when there is even more oil right here in the US? There are large deposits of oil in Alaska and some of the largest deposits in the world in the Gulf of Mexico? If he wanted oil enough to invade a country, why wouldn't he drill here instead?

The prices on oil didn't suit US, so they needed an armed conflict in an oil-rich country to change the oil prices

Like i just said, we could have gotten even more oil and lowered prices even more by drilling in our own country. That's why this whole "war for oil" argument doesn't make much sense to me.

Total the number of people killed in Texas executions, plus the number of people who commit suicide from being out of work due to corperate downsizing (due to the Bush family's tax breaks), plus the number of people murdered because the both Bushes' haven't done a thing to regulate guns, plus the number of civillians killed in wars with Bush (George and George W) interference, plus the number of people that the CIA have killed (god knows how many) during both Bushes' presidency.

First off, in texas executions, people convicted of murder and lord only knows what else die. The death penalty isn't murder. Saddam Hussein was killing and torturing innocent people, not people guilty of hideous crimes against humanity.
Corporate downsizing due to Bush's tax breaks? Tax breaks let people keep more of their own money, giving them more disposible income, and, in the case of business, allowing room for more employees due to a cut in expenses. Simple economics. How would the government not taking away as much of your money hurt you, anyway?
The number of murders due to lack of gun control? Theres a couple of things i don't get about gun control. First off, if you put stricter laws on guns, how is that going to stop a murderer from obtaining them? Drugs are illegal, and those are easy to obtain illegally. Besides, is making gun-owning a crime really going to stop people who use them to murder somebody with? We had murder before guns, too. Like the NRA says, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Think about this: Why doesn't the US focus on finding Osama, who was supposed to have caused the 9/11 attacks, which started this whole mess?

Who said we were done with Osama? We're still looking for him, but it's just that we don't need a large-scale military operation just to get him. We destroyed his army in Afghanistan, and for all we know he could very well be dead already. We're not done looking for Osama, contrary to some people claiming that we've given up.
Well, i have to get some sleep. I'll go into more later.

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

On the whole war being about oil:
Why would Bush go to the trouble of invading another country just for oil when there is even more oil right here in the US? There are large deposits of oil in Alaska and some of the largest deposits in the world in the Gulf of Mexico? If he wanted oil enough to invade a country, why wouldn't he drill here instead?

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/113/nation/US_eyes_drilling_on_Alaska_coast+.shtml (cut and paste link, yabb messes up at the +)
http://ens-news.com/ens/apr2003/2003-04-24-10.asp

Its an uphill battle convincing your own people that you should be drilling in wildlife refuges. Its much easier to go attack a defenceless country that just happens to have oodles of oil

Also:
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=6393

Extract:

Moreover, considering the aforementioned penchant of Chavez to do things that rub Washington the wrong way, it's generally assumed that there's no love lost for his government in the corridors of the White House and State Department. Those sentiments are unlikely to change anytime soon given the fact that Venezuela is an important exporter of oil to the US, that those exports are now dwindling to a trickle, and the fact of the war with Iraq.

One more factor in the equation.

Oh yeah funny you should mention this:

Like the NRA says, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

How about:
The NRA says, 'Guns don't kill people - people kill people.' That may be true, but I think the gun helps. You're not going to kill many people by standing around shouting 'bang bang!'.

IMO, gun control would help in a lot of situations, today's school shooting is one example. If things are available easily, if they are lying around, and we are all human, we get mad, we do stupid things. I don't think its a good idea to have a lethal weapon lying around. The sheer numbers of guns around, make it easier for them to be stolen, illegally bought and end up in the wrong hands.

Oh yeah in case you are not familiar with the shooting thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34769-2003Apr24.html

[DGMacphee]

First off, in texas executions, people convicted of murder and lord only knows what else die. The death penalty isn't murder. Saddam Hussein was killing and torturing innocent people, not people guilty of hideous crimes against humanity.

A few months ago there was a British man in Texas sentenced to the death penalty for a murder.

A little while later, his defence lawyers found evidence that proved he didn't do it.

But it was too late -- he was dead.

Corporate downsizing due to Bush's tax breaks? Tax breaks let people keep more of their own money, giving them more disposible income, and, in the case of business, allowing room for more employees due to a cut in expenses. Simple economics. How would the government not taking away as much of your money hurt you, anyway?

Simple economics doesn't always work that way -- businesses have other motives.

A lot of the large companies that are failing ask for tax breaks from the government.

After the companies regain stability, they ship their factories to countries with cheaper labour.

it's happened so many times and I can provide you with a list of companies that have.

The number of murders due to lack of gun control? Theres a couple of things i don't get about gun control. First off, if you put stricter laws on guns, how is that going to stop a murderer from obtaining them? Drugs are illegal, and those are easy to obtain illegally. Besides, is making gun-owning a crime really going to stop people who use them to murder somebody with? We had murder before guns, too. Like the NRA says, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Strangely enough, most of the murders commited in the US are gun-related.

Sure, there's always going to be murders, but in this instance the government CAN DO SOMETHING about it.

As for "guns not killing people; people killing people", I say a lot less murders would be committed if you didn't give those people guns.

Who said we were done with Osama? We're still looking for him, but it's just that we don't need a large-scale military operation just to get him. We destroyed his army in Afghanistan, and for all we know he could very well be dead already. We're not done looking for Osama, contrary to some people claiming that we've given up.

First of all the US did not destroy "his army" in Afghanistan.

They "destroyed" the Taliban, which was an Afghan militant group with extreme Islamic beliefs (as you probably know).

The Taliban controlled Afghanistan for about 7 years and the US didn't do a damn thing about the number of pbulic executions until 2001.

Then the UN forced sanctions in 1998 after the bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania because Osama was a "guest" in Afghanistan.

Then Sept 11 2001 rocked the world and Bush threatened to get the terrorists and "those that harbour them".

The Taliban were a part of "those that harbour them" but they are not Osama's army.

Osama is Saudi-born and the head of Al'Qeada, which has not been stamped out yet.

He is not the head of the Afghan Taliban.

Secondly, how much do you know about Osama's business dealings?

Did you know he used to own a large part of a company operated by Bush Sr?

And did you know he was trained by the CIA as a Middle-Eastern operative?

(In fact, the same thing happened with Noriega)

That's why I'm asking you why there hasn't been any mention of Osama in ages.