Quote from traderNik: It is difficult to explain to people why, now that Hussein is in jail, there is more murder and mayhem than ever before. Uhhh, maybe because he was a BRUTAL MF'er that killed off a few people that he believed to be his enemy ? In other words , he terrorized his own country so he could stay in power.
who cares if saddam was a murdering a-hole? there are far worse dictators in the world than saddam at the moment. saddam is just playing college boy pranks in comparison. will we do anything about these other a-holes? no way jose! why? cos they dont have anything worth having or they are too powerful. saddam just had all the right ingredients: oil, oil, a grudge from a previous failed war, oil, some alleged threat/wmd's, some oil, a bad pr job due to his evilness, some oil, and errr some oil. did i mention oil by the way?
??????? How does this counter the position that violence is worse with Saddam out of power? Besides, on the bottom of page 7, I gave 6 examples of dictators still in power with the same reputation. I don't see much US outrage about them.
??????????? What the hell is the significance of this?? How does this relate to the post you quoted? How does your last reply to me relate to the post you quoted? Did you post this in the wrong forum?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from riserburn: ??????? How does this counter the position that violence is worse with Saddam out of power? Besides, on the bottom of page 7, I gave 6 examples of dictators still in power with the same reputation. I don't see much US outrage about them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How do YOU spell repression ?? Was I talking to you ???
No man, you're evidently talking to yourself... Anyway, back to the discussion at hand... I notice that the ET right aren't exactly jumping up to back the bizarre idea that a majority of Americans would support the invasion of a sovereign nation for the purpose of securing US oil supplies. After this, I doubt AAA can understand that it's the impossibility of defining the mission in Iraq, especially now, that is causing unnecessary US casualties, as opposed to the 'appeasement' of Muslims.
I should have been more specific in describing the situation in which the American public would approve of a war to secure oil supplies. I don't think anything resembling the current situation or the situation preceding the Iraq invasion would be sufficient. I can see a situation in which, for example, we faced a crippling boycott, or if for example, Saudi Arabia were taken over by al qaeda, then such an invasion would not seem implausible. I wasn't advocating it, but rathr I was trying to draw a distinction with the administration's ever changing justifications for war. Anyway, if we wanted to take someone's oil, Venezuela is a lot handier.
traderNik Registered: Apr 2002 Posts: 844 03-04-06 06:05 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from Haroki: Was I talking to you ??? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No man, you're evidently talking to yourself...out your ass. Nice editing there Res.....