The "War on Terror"

[Lord Kelvin]

Bush has recently done a pretty good job of patching up relations with Europe, since I'm not seeing a whole lot of news about deteriorating relationships between Europe and the US. But something that's gotten my attention for a while is his "war on terror". I don't know if Bush really believes in what he says, but thinking that terrorists are attacking us because they hate freedom is plain retarded IMO. The terrorists are attacking the US (and I define "attack" loosely) because of our policies towards the Middle East, not because we love freedom. After all, look what we've done in the past; we're allied with Israel (nothing wrong with that, except that lots of militants in the area despise Israel), we're heavily dependent on oil (and I've heard that it specifically states in US foreign policy that if necessary we'd protect these countries from anyone that would attack them), not to mention a lot of stuff that's been basically burned into their memory from history (ie., Crusades and Spanish Inquisition did cause a lot of suffering to Muslims, and they were started by Christians). Add to the fact that to them it looks like we invaded Iraq to convert them from their way of life (lots of western ideals conflict with Qu'ran beliefs, such as alcohol) and to get oil, and you've basically got a party.

I'm not advocating anything here, but I am questioning the logic that's driving this entire thing. I mean, even the President is human, and pride (a very common trait among politicians) has done a lot of harm in the past.

[Col.Kurtz]

no its because were superrrrr RICH and THEY TWISTED THEIR RELIGION SO THAT ITS VIOLENT.

just think we're on 2 war fronts and im still not paying 2.85 for gas.

[theubc]

THE WAR ON TERROR IS A HOAX MAN!!!!!!!!

bush=fascist

[lucky644]

Bush has recently done a pretty good job of patching up relations with Europe, since I'm not seeing a whole lot of news about deteriorating relationships between Europe and the US. But something that's gotten my attention for a while is his "war on terror". I don't know if Bush really believes in what he says, but thinking that terrorists are attacking us because they hate freedom is plain retarded IMO. The terrorists are attacking the US (and I define "attack" loosely) because of our policies towards the Middle East, not because we love freedom. After all, look what we've done in the past; we're allied with Israel (nothing wrong with that, except that lots of militants in the area despise Israel), we're heavily dependent on oil (and I've heard that it specifically states in US foreign policy that if necessary we'd protect these countries from anyone that would attack them), not to mention a lot of stuff that's been basically burned into their memory from history (ie., Crusades and Spanish Inquisition did cause a lot of suffering to Muslims, and they were started by Christians). Add to the fact that to them it looks like we invaded Iraq to convert them from their way of life (lots of western ideals conflict with Qu'ran beliefs, such as alcohol) and to get oil, and you've basically got a party.

I'm not advocating anything here, but I am questioning the logic that's driving this entire thing. I mean, even the President is human, and pride (a very common trait among politicians) has done a lot of harm in the past.

And those who aren't brainwashed yet also see that the whole thing is a 'holy' war.

Both sides are acting stupid, both sides could be considered terrorists and both sides think their religion and way of life is correct.

Stupid.

[Lord Kelvin]

no its because were superrrrr RICH and THEY TWISTED THEIR RELIGION SO THAT ITS VIOLENT.

just think we're on 2 war fronts and im still not paying 2.85 for gas.
THE WAR ON TERROR IS A HOAX MAN!!!!!!!!

bush=fascist
Uh, sure you two didn't wander in here by accident? This is the Firebox, post something relavent or nothing at all.

[Moe_Rahn]

no its because were superrrrr RICH and THEY TWISTED THEIR RELIGION SO THAT ITS VIOLENT.

just think we're on 2 war fronts and im still not paying 2.85 for gas.
Where in the hell do you live? Even here in Buttfuck, Missouri, we've been paying over $2.85 a gallon for some time now.

[Col.Kurtz]

Ohio > You Lol Lol I Win


My Beer Belly + Ford Bronco (12 mpg) = American Pride FK YEAAA TRY AND STOP ME FROM USING THE WORLDS FUEL YEA LAWL LOL

[Moe_Rahn]

Ohio > You Lol Lol I Win


My Beer Belly + Ford Bronco (12 mpg) = American Pride FK YEAAA TRY AND STOP ME FROM USING THE WORLDS FUEL YEA LAWL LOL
Wow, that was, uh... stupid.

[theubc]

Uh, sure you two didn't wander in here by accident? This is the Firebox, post something relavent or nothing at all.
Sorry ill read the directions better next time :)

[Col.Kurtz]

And those who aren't brainwashed yet also see that the whole thing is a 'holy' war.

Both sides are acting stupid, both sides could be considered terrorists and both sides think their religion and way of life is correct.

Stupid.
a holy war, are you stupid? you honestly believe the american pple are there because "we" are all christians who want to convert them/kill them (because thats all christsians want to do, only canadians see thru them).... really gg if you even can say brain wash and iraq war in the same sentance.

[lucky644]

a holy war, are you stupid? you honestly believe the american pple are there because "we" are all christians who want to convert them/kill them (because thats all christsians want to do, only canadians see thru them).... really gg if you even can say brain wash and iraq war in the same sentance.

Correct, your essentially trying to push your beliefs and customs on other societies. THAT is why everyone hates america.

[GoatChomper]

I don't know if Bush really believes in what he says, but thinking that terrorists are attacking us because they hate freedom is plain retarded IMO.
Recall that you have various would-be power players denouncing democracy as a perversion.
.....not to mention a lot of stuff that's been basically burned into their memory from history (ie., Crusades and Spanish Inquisition did cause a lot of suffering to Muslims, and they were started by Christians).
That's nothing more than a steaming pile of identity politics. Anybody who blames their real or perceived plights on the actions of nations that have been gone for centuries is playing the victim and blaming their own failures and shortcomings on people long, long gone.
Add to the fact that to them it looks like we invaded Iraq to convert them from their way of life (lots of western ideals conflict with Qu'ran beliefs, such as alcohol).....
Alcohol consumption in a highly secularized society like Iraq is far from new.....ever heard of arak?
Correct, your essentially trying to push your beliefs and customs on other societies.
Yeah, that's why we're allowing elections and a constitutional referendum that a Sunni minority can void.....right?
THAT is why everyone hates america.
I don't recall you winning election to the post of Spokesman For The World.

[BlindSite]

Correct, your essentially trying to push your beliefs and customs on other societies.

No we're trying to give people the right to choose what they value and stop the people who hate what we value. See the difference?

btw, I am an Australian, my nation is an integral part of the War On Terror, as is Great Britain it's not all run by america so don't limit your disagreement with the War on your dislike for america.

[kreket]

Just an observation here:

The countries that seem to support the war on terror the most, are those which has no recent history of occupation or those that has the most recent history of large scale occupation. This means the "anglo-saxon belt of the free" in Australia, UK and the USA who never was invaded in WW2 and therefor didn't live through harsh occupation. Then there is the belt of Poland and it's kin, the countries that were squashed in the aftermath of WW2 and the start of the Cold War. They would prefer to have been occupied by someone who actually would give them freedom and may see occupation as more 'inevitable' than that of Western Europe.

Feel free to correct any mistakes on my part here.

[Col.Kurtz]

Correct, your essentially trying to push your beliefs and customs on other societies. THAT is why everyone hates america.


well you are right as far us pushing our goverment type on them, if you think religion has anything to do with us being there you really are a moron

[Col. Psycho]

Dont know if its been said or not, but one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

the whole thing is a fuckup. but whats pissing me off, regardless of all of our mixed views, is that the media is trying to turn this into another vietnam.

regardless of the money, oil and what not involved, saddam was an ass. sure, the concept of removal was great, but the execution (no pun intended) was shitty. But at the end of the day, we as man try to learn by these mistakes, and try to fix things.

i have a lil faith. and not in god, but in mankind. i think you guys should too.

my opinion.

[Col.Kurtz]

Just an observation here:

The countries that seem to support the war on terror the most, are those which has no recent history of occupation or those that has the most recent history of large scale occupation. This means the "anglo-saxon belt of the free" in Australia, UK and the USA who never was invaded in WW2 and therefor didn't live through harsh occupation. Then there is the belt of Poland and it's kin, the countries that were squashed in the aftermath of WW2 and the start of the Cold War. They would prefer to have been occupied by someone who actually would give them freedom and may see occupation as more 'inevitable' than that of Western Europe.

Feel free to correct any mistakes on my part here.

well there were those islands off of like alaska that the japanese manged to get ahold of for a short time (forget the name though) and also, occupation in gnereral to any country sucks, but the way the occupation is going in iraq is a far far cry from the horrible ways people were treated by germans and russians from World War 1 to the end of the cold war. arnt you german by the way?

[Lord Kelvin]

well you are right as far us pushing our goverment type on them, if you think religion has anything to do with us being there you really are a moron
It might not be the reason that we're there, but that's what it looks like to some of the religious leaders there (hence the Jihad). Although we're giving them "democracy" it looks to some of them like their government is just going to be filled with puppets of the US government (and not an entirely unfair assumption either, given the state of things). Put it this way: if your country was invaded and its leaders deposed (forget for the moment that you live in a democracy), wouldn't you be pissed, even if you hated the leaders of your country? The basic fact that the US invaded Iraq has caused a quite a few Muslims to join the insurgency cause, because they see themselves as getting rid of the "invaders", which just happen to be us. Although it looks like the insurgency is going to die down pretty soon ( http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/07/pentagon.al.qaeda/index.html ), there's always going to be Muslims who will hate the US, whether it's from loss or from learned hate.

[Toastar]

well you are right as far us pushing our goverment type on them, if you think religion has anything to do with us being there you really are a moron

hahahahaha.... have you ever listened to what bush says?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031222/stam

[lucky644]

hahahahaha.... have you ever listened to what bush says?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031222/stam

Exactly, you can't say someone who thinks they're a messenger of God isn't pushing religion.

[tombanius]

They are actually saying that aren't they. Too bad no one believes.

[Lord Kelvin]

Well, not to disagree with you (since that article does present quite a few facts), but isn't The Nation largely a Liberal paper?

[Toastar]

wouldn't know

[Col.Kurtz]

well, look at it this way, he might want to be there for that, but seeing as how hes only a puppet of the people, he could want to attack canada, doesnt mean that would ever happen.

[Col.Kurtz]

after thnking about it, i kind had the thought, so what if christians want to kill all muslims, what do i really care? after 9/11 we should have sent suicidal christians to the middle east and let the poor twisted islamic faith fight them on there own ground.

fight fire with fire.


despite what ever you might wish to say, The United States is still, and will always be the greatest nation on the planet.

so in the words of Apathy "Taste my ball sweat, The Necter OF Freedom".

[Lord Kelvin]

after thnking about it, i kind had the thought, so what if christians want to kill all muslims, what do i really care? after 9/11 we should have sent suicidal christians to the middle east and let the poor twisted islamic faith fight them on there own ground.

fight fire with fire.

You're entitled to that view if you wish. However, most, if not all, politicians are against the use of suicide bombers, Christian or Muslim. Not to mention, suicide bombing is usually a terrorism tactic, not something you use for warfare; not to mention, here in America we value life differently than they do, so unless you were being sarcastic, my opinion is that you're an idiot.

despite what ever you might wish to say, The United States is still, and will always be the greatest nation on the planet.

That's what the Romans, and the Greeks, said. No, the United States isn't going to stay the greatest nation on this planet. Yes, it's a given that we are now, but it's the natural course of the world for things to change; even the power of the US is subject to that. It may not happen anytime soon, but it will happen.

so in the words of Apathy "Taste my ball sweat, The Necter OF Freedom".

Do I have to restate myself? This is the Firebox, not the OTF. Behave as such.

[BlindSite]

He is entitled to that view, like you and I are entitled to our own. Whilst not all Muslims are extremists, not all are not.

[phide]

Those "God told me to go to war" reports are presumably false. There's some second-hand information there, and the White House is denying he ever said any of it.

It's obvious that religion affects Bush's policies, which I completely disagree with, but don't listen to some news report about Bush's cabinet-member's brother's uncle saying Bush said something and take it as the gospel.

And don't act like Christians aren't dying for the opportunity to spread their religion, but that isn't specifically what this war is about, nor do I really believe that's happening often enough to bother paying any attention to it.

[BlindSite]

It might affect some of his policy's but the war on terror is in no way a religous war from the western side. The Australian Gov wouldn't be involved if it was and secondly I wouldn't in any way support it. I am anti religion more than almost anything I certainly wouldn't have anything in the way of support for the war on terror if I even semi believed your sentiments.

[SWATJester_os]

Wow. If I see this kind of horseshit posting like I saw in the beginning of this thread again, you'll feel my wrath. Thanks.

[Lord Kelvin]

It might affect some of his policy's but the war on terror is in no way a religous war from the western side. The Australian Gov wouldn't be involved if it was and secondly I wouldn't in any way support it. I am anti religion more than almost anything I certainly wouldn't have anything in the way of support for the war on terror if I even semi believed your sentiments.
Yes, you're right, the reason we're there isn't because we want to convert all the Muslims into Christians. But even so, you can't deny the fact that Christian activists are calling for converting the Muslims into Christians because "our values are better than theirs". What they don't realize is that the Qu'ran is not terribly different from the Bible in that it teaches people to value life, to practice tolerance, and to basically be a good person. I haven't read the Qu'ran (or a majority of the New Testament at that) so I can't quote any specific passages, but if it really were as flawed as the Christian activists say, then we wouldn't have any cooperation from them at all, and Baghdad would be an utter hell hole, even in the Green Zone.

And, as I said before, it's mostly the other side that sees this as a religious war, or at least see it as a quest to repel the invaders. If both sides saw this war as the same thing, then there'd be negotiations instead of IEDs and ambushes.

[BlindSite]

You might not realise this but I study religion in school, I know all about the values and beliefs of other religions and I honestly don't give a rats ass about what you, me or anyone values religiously, IMO it's out of place in a discussion about terrorism.

Terrorism is less about religion and more about the manipulation of a religious people. Whilst there's some christians who are just as bad as the extremeists committing acts (in their views not actions) of violence it does not mean that the war is being fought due to their wishes or desires.

[Lord Kelvin]

You might not realise this but I study religion in school, I know all about the values and beliefs of other religions and I honestly don't give a rats ass about what you, me or anyone values religiously, IMO it's out of place in a discussion about terrorism.

Terrorism is less about religion and more about the manipulation of a religious people. Whilst there's some christians who are just as bad as the extremeists committing acts (in their views not actions) of violence it does not mean that the war is being fought due to their wishes or desires.

I'm not saying that all the terrorists are religious extremists who think this is a Jihad, what I'm saying is that some of them are being manipulated as such. Also, some of them may actually believe that this is a Jihad, but I can't be certain about that. From what I've seen in the news, the insurgents view the US more as invaders of their soil rather than religious infidels. And from the looks of things that view is replacing the Jihad view, since the last I heard of that was about 2-3 years ago.

[BlindSite]

Oh yes, they'd definatley believe its a Jihad, the biggest thing though is finding and stopping those who're manipulating the impressionable who they can us as puppets.

[Whoami88]

You're entitled to that view if you wish. However, most, if not all, politicians are against the use of suicide bombers, Christian or Muslim.

Syria pays compensention to all palestinian sucide bombers families and relatives :rolleyes:

Ever wonder were all the terrorist get the money to buy their new shiny toys? All muslims are required by religion to pay 2.5% of their compensition to charity. Mostly Islamic Charties that shipp that money to other Islamic Charties around the world were some of that money will eventually find their way into terrorist organzitions around the world.

Its no exaggration to say that where ever there are muslims, there are Islamic Terrorists.

The West may not consider its self at war with Islam, but Islamic countries see themselve at war with the West.

I wonder how many synagouges the palestines burnt down after Israel pulled out? God forbid if American soldiers return fire at Insurgents hidding in a Mosque but its ok if angry Palestines to burn down places of worship. Or if in Malaysia that denies the building of New Churches and treats its other relgion miniorites as second class citizens. Its ok if Muslims force 700,000 Christians out of their homes, burn them down, and kill thousands in Indonesia, then have the current Indonesia government do nothing to stop it and refuse any help from outside assistance. Muslims never speak about the atrocities of their own religion but are quick to point the shortcomings and atrocities of Christian/Western nations. Most Muslims are nothing more then hypocrites. I can't stand talking to Muslims because they do nothing but bitch about how their oppressed by the Christian/Western lands but they will refuse to move to Islamic lands because they know they won't be able to bitch without being killed in those countries.

[Col.Kurtz]

islam is theeee most peaceful religion ever concuckted, its a shame that a few nutters have twisted the faith around for to say "kill everyone in the west because they watch nascar and drink beer"

[Col.Kurtz]

Syria pays compensention to all palestinian sucide bombers families and relatives :rolleyes:

Ever wonder were all the terrorist get the money to buy their new shiny toys? All muslims are required by religion to pay 2.5% of their compensition to charity. Mostly Islamic Charties that shipp that money to other Islamic Charties around the world were some of that money will eventually find their way into terrorist organzitions around the world.

Its no exaggration to say that where ever there are muslims, there are Islamic Terrorists.

The West may not consider its self at war with Islam, but Islamic countries see themselve at war with the West.

I wonder how many synagouges the palestines burnt down after Israel pulled out? God forbid if American soldiers return fire at Insurgents hidding in a Mosque but its ok if angry Palestines to burn down places of worship. Or if in Malaysia that denies the building of New Churches and treats its other relgion miniorites as second class citizens. Its ok if Muslims force 700,000 Christians out of their homes, burn them down, and kill thousands in Indonesia, then have the current Indonesia government do nothing to stop it and refuse any help from outside assistance. Muslims never speak about the atrocities of their own religion but are quick to point the shortcomings and atrocities of Christian/Western nations. Most Muslims are nothing more then hypocrites. I can't stand talking to Muslims because they do nothing but bitch about how their oppressed by the Christian/Western lands but they will refuse to move to Islamic lands because they know they won't be able to bitch without being killed in those countries.

wow i did a back ground check on everything you just said and learned alot of new things, i owe you one.

[Whoami88]

wow i did a back ground check on everything you just said and learned alot of new things, i owe you one.

Anything to show people of what a joke Islam is.

Bar in mind that Christianity is not much better, or any religion in that matter.
All I know is that Christianity is very different today then it was in the Medieval age but Islam hasn't changed at all. I'll die and rot in hell before I follow the guidelines set by 1 guy hundreds of years ago who didn't even follow those lines himself and with Christinity I absoultly deny the original sin theory. The fact that I've personally "sinned" against God because of what Adamn and Eve did millions of years ago is complete bullshit. The Original Sin theory is just a scare Tactic the Church used to make sure people did whatever the chruch said.

My point? All religions suck and all they do is give power to someone else claiming to be the voice of god and that is what leds to all the genocides and overal chaos this earth is in.

[kreket]

well there were those islands off of like alaska that the japanese manged to get ahold of for a short time (forget the name though) and also, occupation in gnereral to any country sucks, but the way the occupation is going in iraq is a far far cry from the horrible ways people were treated by germans and russians from World War 1 to the end of the cold war. arnt you german by the way?

I'm Norwegian if you ask.

There was far worse generalisations in that post of mine than that bit with islands outside Alaska. The point is more about who wasn't occupied, who was and for how long (or how recent) it was. It's not a great theory, just some speculation based on the policy of different countries. Occupation can be a very bad thing, as with the Hitler-German and the imperial Japanese one. Iraq is not the same thing: hostages have not been taken and shot, there is not much to loot by the state, noone is forced to join the Bush jr. youth association and noone goes around arresting people for inferiority. There seems to be a massive torture operation in the prisons of the US occupation, but hey, they must be terrorists since we're torturing them. :rolleyes:


Palestinian burning synagoges: What the hell did the Israelian government expect? First of there is a lack of room in that area, government Pals were talking on BBC radio about finding a way to export the things to Chicago if need be. Secondary, they could have performed the ritual that does not make them holy anymore. As it were the rest of the camps were ruins when the IDF went through, the only thing standing left were oversized synagoges standing out like giant beacons for the mots to "dishonour themselves".

Yeah, it is fucking okay to take your rage out on a building that still stands with no purpose or owner. These weren't holy places, they were fires to attract the insects so that the propaganda crew could have it's day. If the IDF or Isrealian government at all cared about the synagoges they should have de-holied them or moved them. Not leave them standing as a testament that the arrangement is temporary and that they might move back.

[Whoami88]

I'm Norwegian if you ask.




Palestinian burning synagoges: What the hell did the Israelian government expect? First of there is a lack of room in that area, government Pals were talking on BBC radio about finding a way to export the things to Chicago if need be. Secondary, they could have performed the ritual that does not make them holy anymore. As it were the rest of the camps were ruins when the IDF went through, the only thing standing left were oversized synagoges standing out like giant beacons for the mots to "dishonour themselves".

Yeah, it is fucking okay to take your rage out on a building that still stands with no purpose or owner. These weren't holy places, they were fires to attract the insects so that the propaganda crew could have it's day. If the IDF or Isrealian government at all cared about the synagoges they should have de-holied them or moved them. Not leave them standing as a testament that the arrangement is temporary and that they might move back.

My point was that if a Mosque was accidently destroyed in a firefight or any other reason every goddamn Muslim in the world would be in upcry. But if Muslims commit these outrages (which they do in all Islamic dominated parts of the world, especially in Southeast Asia) muslims are completly silent. Muslims seem to have this mind set that "if their muslim like me then they must be right!" shit that pisses me off. I'm talking about the Majority here, I know there some muslims that aren't like that. I know because theres a Mosque right down the street from I live, I talked to plenty Muslims and it makes me sick to hear how alot of them sympathize with not only the Iraqi Insurgents, who kill more Iraqi's then American bombs did during the invasion, but with Bin Laden himself.

[BlindSite]

South East asia represent, we're having a lot of trouble getting the indonesian government to make Jamah Islamia an illeagal organisation when they've claimed responsibility now for atleast three terrorists attacks, and are known allies of Al Quaeda.

[GoatChomper]

My point was that if a Mosque was accidently destroyed in a firefight or any other reason every goddamn Muslim in the world would be in upcry. But if Muslims commit these outrages (which they do in all Islamic dominated parts of the world, especially in Southeast Asia) muslims are completly silent.
A generalization, and an incorrect one at that.

[kreket]

On the note of Syria's support of families of suicide bombers.

It's hell that there is terrorism and the killing of civilians, but.. ..some of those families had their homes destroyed after the bombers blew themselves up. If we take the stance that the suicide bomber was an irresponsible twit who "just wanted to go to heaven" by blowing up bystanders and getting his family's house demolished at the same time, then things look a little different. There probably are families that support "the martyr's" actions and there might be support of a certain size and earning for those who do lose a family member. But just playing devils advocate and the retribution from IDF gives it a little more shade of gray, with a hint of social support.

It might not change that much, but that little bit about demolished homes seperates it from full-scale support of the killing of innocents into something more edible in moral standards. If we do not believe that it creates an incentive to go blasting yourself up, that is. Still tastes harsh and foul, either way.

"Islamic countries see themselves at war with the west".. Erm.. Is this one of those generalisations or is it someone in specific? I agree that there are issues on democracy and freedom in many Islamic countries, but those are democracy and freedom. Not hostility towards the west, something which also occur.

Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, Pakistan, Enduring Freedom of Afghanistan, Libya, Saudi-Arabia.. There is a long list there of western friendly or allied powers. Turkey even views itself as European.

[BlindSite]

A generalization, and an incorrect one at that.

I disagree, when a westerner is the cause of a death on a citizen in the nation of Indonesia there was a huge upcry not too long ago especially since it was during an investigation into terrorism, unsurprisingly following the Bali Bombings again there has been little to no out cry from the muslims in Australia or for that matter indonesia.

[kreket]

In the aftermath over France's ban on headscarfs in schools, Tunisia have enlegthened it's ban on headscarfs among public officials at work to also account for the rest of the population in everyday life.

The president of Tunisia have also found use for holy war. He declared it as a Jihad against poverty.

[Whoami88]

I disagree, when a westerner is the cause of a death on a citizen in the nation of Indonesia there was a huge upcry not too long ago especially since it was during an investigation into terrorism, unsurprisingly following the Bali Bombings again there has been little to no out cry from the muslims in Australia or for that matter indonesia.

Exactly, if a muslim kills another muslim its a crime. If a non-muslim/westerner kills a muslim its an attack on Islam. Its ridiculous, most muslim's minds are stuck in the Medieval ages were all Christians were out to get them. Mind they were doing the same thing at the time, something Islamic history tends to ignore.

[Col.Kurtz]

dont worry, every "infidel" has there own place in hell.


its up to you to determine who is the "infidel".

[GoatChomper]

I disagree.....
Then you are being selective in your reading.

[BlindSite]

I don't believe I am, and just because it works on the uneducated and illogical your little quips do not work on me. The Generalisation exists but its a necessary one for arguments sake.

[GoatChomper]

Then why use it for a poor argument. Claiming that no Muslim has denounced these acts is false.....why argue a falsity.

[BlindSite]

He's arguing that the majority have not, which is not a falsity, you assumed that because he did not make his best efforts to clarify, justify or class what he was saying he was referring to the entire muslim populace.

It's something known as comprehension, to understand what is not necessarily written, just because he didn't say an exact percentage does not mean he was referring to the entire populace...

[HarryB]

He's arguing that the majority have not, which is not a falsity, you assumed that because he did not make his best efforts to clarify, justify or class what he was saying he was referring to the entire muslim populace.

You're making the same, yet opposite, claim. You only know what you've been told by News agencies. You haven't gone over there and asked the majority what they think. All you know is that they hold parades and the camera guy likes to talk to oddballs. How many other people in those cities aren't participating? You don't know so don't generalize.

It's something known as comprehension, to understand what is not necessarily written, just because he didn't say an exact percentage does not mean he was referring to the entire populace...

There's a cop-out if I ever heard one.

"Jews smell; it's a fact!"
"Shut up, not all jews smell. A lot jews smell just fine."
"I never said all jews. So your argument becomes invalid. Hurray for generalization and being vague!"

[GoatChomper]

He's arguing that the majority have not.....
If that's his hangup, then he's really expending energy to no purpose. What, he hasn't heard the majority of the world's one billion-odd Muslims condemn something? I can think of more productive targets for my salvos.

[BlindSite]

Considering I have heard none condemn it and I have countless resources for the news at my disposal I think I am going to stick to my guns on this one.

[SWATJester_os]

For the record, just to set it straight I mean, most Muslims in Iraq drink. Heavily. Most sunnis I've found drink alcohol. The minority shi'ites do not. In fact, we asked one of our detainees once, "Zack, do you drink?" His answer was hilarious. "Yes. All of us."

Agreed, though I found it was confined mostly to the larger cities, especially in the Sunni regions. Though I did see a lot of Shiites drink but nearly ALL sunni's were alcoholics.

[kreket]

Urm.. Alcoholics as in pro-alcohol or as in severely suffering?

We've been over the alcohol subject before. I seriously doubt the US has as many beer brands as the Middle East and as most Europeans I'd prefer just about any kind of beer coming out of the ME above a Budweiser, but that's about taste.

[BlindSite]

Kreket, what point were you trying to make exactly?

[HarryB]

Are they alcoholics, or do they just like to drink?

[GoatChomper]

Considering I have heard none condemn it and I have countless resources for the news at my disposal.....
Hey, so do I.....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Muslims+condemn+terror+attacks&btnG=Google+Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,960,000 for Muslims condemn terror attacks. (0.18 seconds)

[marty]

Urm.. Alcoholics as in pro-alcohol or as in severely suffering?

We've been over the alcohol subject before. I seriously doubt the US has as many beer brands as the Middle East and as most Europeans I'd prefer just about any kind of beer coming out of the ME above a Budweiser, but that's about taste.
I bet you'd like our microbrews.

[BlindSite]

Hey, so do I.....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Muslims+condemn+terror+attacks&btnG=Google+Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,960,000 for Muslims condemn terror attacks. (0.18 seconds)
Now go through all of those sources, eradicate the bullshit, find the reliable news and information services, find the Muslims that arnt repeated. Tally that number and compare the numbers they represent to the entire populace. Then argue its the majority, saying you know how to use a search engine does not prove your point.

[Milkman Dan]

Now go through all of those sources, eradicate the bullshit, find the reliable news and information services, find the Muslims that arnt repeated. Tally that number and compare the numbers they represent to the entire populace. Then argue its the majority, saying you know how to use a search engine does not prove your point.
You know what's proof towards Muslims condeming terrorism?

The Quran

There will always be religious extremists, but you cannot condemn an entirety of peoples based on them. It's close-minded to blanket them all as being in accord on these tactics against non-Muslims. Just because someone hasn't posted a plethora of links to satiate your perspective doesn't mean it isn't true. It's downright audacious and immoral to think that the majority of Muslims are OK with it. The Quran is quite against murdering of innocents. Sure, some later verses may contradict the whole only fight in defense, but the Bible also contradicts itself. Eye for an eye in the Old Testament, and turn the other cheek in the New Testament. Extremist Christians exist, but that doesn't mean the entire populace of Christians are for a Holy War.

Muslims don't support terrorism, because they are peaceful if they correctly abide by the Quran. They don't want that attention directed towards them, because that leads to war. They are supposed to keep peace if there is a possibility for it. There's also a crap load of sins involved in terrorism. You also have to consider that a lot of these Muslim countries does supply a computer to every single person so they can log on to a message board or report to a news service that they are against terrorism.

Just because nobody is around when a tree falls doesn't exactly mean it doesn't make a sound. It's just common sense.

[BlindSite]

More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other cause how can you even try to argue that a religious text shows that they condemn it?

[kreket]

Kreket, what point were you trying to make exactly?

Drunk Muslims = not that fanatic Muslims

If you believe that the average Mohammad MEasterner is a fanatic, why would he be running a brewery?

Think about it and compare it with the shit abortion clinics got in the southern USA some years back.

[StandingCow]

Now go through all of those sources, eradicate the bullshit, find the reliable news and information services, find the Muslims that arnt repeated. Tally that number and compare the numbers they represent to the entire populace. Then argue its the majority, saying you know how to use a search engine does not prove your point.

think it's your job to go and find a BETTER source... you cannot just sit here and say no show ME something better...

Also, helps you prove your point.

[BlindSite]

Not really, I didn't introduce anything, Goat is arguing the majority of Muslims condemn terrorist attacks, I just want proper proof other than him saying "google"

[pro kossu]

Not really, I didn't introduce anything, Goat is arguing the majority of Muslims condemn terrorist attacks, I just want proper proof other than him saying "google"

Good advice from Goat. I used the words muslim + condemn, first page:

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

I think I posted that one before, in the old forums, under similiar circumstances.

[Milkman Dan]

More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other cause how can you even try to argue that a religious text shows that they condemn it?
How can you argue your empty and hypocritical challenge that demands proof to contradict your unproven point which is based on nothing but poor conjecture?

There's a big difference between someone who practices Christianity and someone who practices Islam. Christians tend to stray every once in awhile, only to pray for forgiveness. Muslims follow the text intensely, hence Islamic Law. The orthodox, regular Muslim will follow it to the t, and will condemn terrorism. The Islamic God is a merciful and compassionate one, not one that seeks blood and destruction of all His enemies.

Don't even try to use that "religion is the major cause of war" crap to try and nullify good points that do properly justify our argument, or all religion because that then will nullify your argument as well. It makes you look incredibly stubborn, and grasping for straws. I, for one, would like to contend, religion is not the leading cause of genocide. If you actually read up on them, you'd see a good chunk of them have nothing to do with religion but with just plain hatred for one another or land struggle (those pesky "savages").

[kreket]

I bet you'd like our microbrews.

Maybe I would. I haven't heard of them.

Woodbridge wine is very good. Can you buy that in the US or is it strictly export?

[GoatChomper]

.....Goat is arguing the majority of Muslims condemn terrorist attacks.....
Time to knock those newly-installed wheels off your goalposts. If you care to look again, I stated nothing of the sort.....I simply take you to task for claiming that most of the world's Muslims are exercising approval via silence. Did you notice that not every Muslim out there cares to bother aintaining a Googleable website?

[HarryB]

Not really, I didn't introduce anything, Goat is arguing the majority of Muslims condemn terrorist attacks, I just want proper proof other than him saying "google"

Gotta love the Open Ears, Insert Fingers, Hum Loudly method to argument making. He did say google it, and by doing so introduced websites that aid his argument. How about instead of attacking his sources, you find your own.

[Milkman Dan]

Gotta love the Open Ears, Insert Fingers, Hum Loudly method to argument making. He did say google it, and by doing so introduced websites that aid his argument. How about instead of attacking his sources, you find your own.
Well, BlindSite has a month to find a plethora of websites to support his point of view. I guess he should consider that a blessing in disguise, hm?

[Locke]

Everybody that is for the war on "terrorism" is simply trying not to get fucked by the us later. Its pretty much a get out of jair free card. "oh we helped w. the war on terror, help us now." its a great plan, but the us isnt out to get terroists, well they are, but they are more looking for oil and lots of it.

[Milkman Dan]

Everybody that is for the war on "terrorism" is simply trying not to get fucked by the us later. Its pretty much a get out of jair free card. "oh we helped w. the war on terror, help us now." its a great plan, but the us isnt out to get terroists, well they are, but they are more looking for oil and lots of it.
Yeah, because you know we got tons of oil from invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank God we did, or else we'd be paying around $3 for gas!

Oh, wait. We didn't. Please use a point that actually has a basis behind it than that dogmatic oil imperialism conspiracy theory.

[Locke]

Yeah, because you know we got tons of oil from invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank God we did, or else we'd be paying around $3 for gas!

Oh, wait. We didn't. Please use a point that actually has a basis behind it than that dogmatic oil imperialism conspiracy theory.


But now we control all* of the oil that comes out of iraq.

*a large portion

[Walnut]

Woodbridge wine is very good. Can you buy that in the US or is it strictly export?

It's sold here.

[Milkman Dan]

But now we control all* of the oil that comes out of iraq.

*a large portion
The money goes to Iraq, and right now Iraqi oil production is down a lot. Iraq hasn't been known for its amount of production. They've been a bit stingy with the oil supply they have. Compounded with the fact that most of the refineries aren't running at full capacity leads to an even more dismal amount of production. They've actually been importing oil byproducts since June 2003, and will continue to since pipelines keep being sabotaged. There's been little action around wells at all. Production capacity must be restored, and privatization will occur soon.

[GoatChomper]

.....the us isnt out to get terroists, well they are, but they are more looking for oil and lots of it.
So that's why all those specwar troops are carrying geologist's tools. Thanks for clarifying.

[SWATJester_os]

Everybody that is for the war on "terrorism" is simply trying not to get fucked by the us later. Its pretty much a get out of jair free card. "oh we helped w. the war on terror, help us now." its a great plan, but the us isnt out to get terroists, well they are, but they are more looking for oil and lots of it.
You're 17, so I'll assume you have a naive dogmatic view of the way things really are. The fact is, that you have no idea whatsoever what actually went on in Iraq. If you think we're looking for oil there, than why are our gas prices higher than ever? (Before the hurricanes, can't use them as an excuse). Obviously we were only in it for the oil, because stopping a cruel dictator who gassed thousands of his own people, and ethnically cleansed tens of thousands more, has repeatedly attacked his neighbors without the thinnest of reasons, and had definitively at one time, and possibly still at this time had a WMD program, after YEARS of warnings, is entirely over the oil. You know, because there's a LOT of oil to be found in Afghanistan, that's why we went to war there. And Bosnia, oh yeah, Bosnia and Kosovo had lots of oil, that's why we intervened there. Oh can't forget Grenada. And Somalia. Jesus, you'd think if we wanted the oil we'd have taken it the first time we successfully defeated the Iraqis. Oh right, we let them keep everything, and were rewarded by a corrupt UN Oil for Food program.

Keep the imperialist us oil robber barons conspiracy off the forums, thanks. It's an insult to those who died there for noble reasons.

But now we control all* of the oil that comes out of iraq.

*a large portion

Very little oil is coming out of Iraq, and what does is controlled 100% by the Iraqi government, not by the US. But nice try pulling things out of your ass.

[Milkman Dan]

You're 17, so I'll assume you have a naive dogmatic view of the way things really are. The fact is, that you have no idea whatsoever what actually went on in Iraq...
It's really sad that a lot of people are starting to believe point of views like his as the truth. They're being brainwashed by falsities when they decry that thing exactly. It's really annoying to hear them point at Cheney for Halliburton getting contracts in Iraq, especially since none of them are familiar with the fact Halliburton has been getting contracts since LBJ. I remember even one person claiming they had contracts worth up to 4 trillion. It's ridiculous.

[GrosPoisson]

Welcome to the world of talking points. It's funny, the American news media actually scares me more than anything right now because of their ability to sway people so easily all the while making them think that their information doesn't need to be examined.

[kreket]

Everybody that is for the war on "terrorism" is simply trying not to get fucked by the us later. Its pretty much a get out of jair free card. "oh we helped w. the war on terror, help us now." its a great plan, but the us isnt out to get terroists, well they are, but they are more looking for oil and lots of it.

This is going to sound crass, but I have more faith in it being a "feel-good" war without proper justification. I can see that it was a good thing to ensure that the oil wealth does not end up in Hussein jr.s pockets and how the people of Iraq can benefit from it, but the whole thing was too centered on finding WMDs. Pity freeing Iraq and stopping the dictators there wasn't a good enough justification before the war, as that would have been better formulated.

But then they'd have to enter a lot more of regimes.

[velik_m]

Yeah, because you know we got tons of oil from invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank God we did, or else we'd be paying around $3 for gas!

Oh, wait. We didn't. Please use a point that actually has a basis behind it than that dogmatic oil imperialism conspiracy theory.

The war on Iraq wasn't started to drive prices of oil down, but to run them up. More expensive oil -> more profit for oil companies. This is the golden era for oil companies. Don't take my word for it - check the stock market, the values of oil companies are booming.

[Lord Kelvin]

The war on Iraq wasn't started to drive prices of oil down, but to run them up. More expensive oil -> more profit for oil companies. This is the golden era for oil companies. Don't take my word for it - check the stock market, the values of oil companies are booming.
Yeah, we started a war where we toppled a dictatorship and where thousands were killed just so the foreign oil companies could earn a few bucks :rolleyes:.

Try using logic in that argument. How would it help the US's energy problems if it costs more to buy oil? The US is a heavy importer of oil (or so I'm led to believe), which comes mainly from OPEC. Why would we start a war just to aid countries that are already doing well?

[Milkman Dan]

The war on Iraq wasn't started to drive prices of oil down, but to run them up. More expensive oil -> more profit for oil companies. This is the golden era for oil companies. Don't take my word for it - check the stock market, the values of oil companies are booming.
Have you been paying attention to the past threads at all?

Where is the logic in driving up prices of oil? You drain the spending money of the consumer, which slows down the economy, and basically will eventually make all other byproducts/users of oil go up in both retail value and production price. That's all for a short-sighted gain that will eventually ruin the economy if prices continue to go up. No politician wears a top hat and monacle while sitting around the ticker machine checking the latest oil company stock prices. That's just an incorrect justification to make our efforts look like it's all a grand orchestration.

Use a little logic before you actually post something like that, please.

[SOCOM-DELTA]

a holy war, are you stupid? you honestly believe the american pple are there because "we" are all christians who want to convert them/kill them (because thats all christsians want to do, only canadians see thru them).... really gg if you even can say brain wash and iraq war in the same sentance.


yes, it is in a sense a holy war. the american people are not in Iraq; BUSH forced us into Iraq because, in his crazy coke-up head, he wanted a holy war.

[Lord Kelvin]

yes, it is in a sense a holy war. the american people are not in Iraq; BUSH forced us into Iraq because, in his crazy coke-up head, he wanted a holy war.
I don't see our Commander-in-Chief starting a war or two just because he thinks it's a holy war. And the coke argument doesn't hold any air either.

[GoatChomper]

The war on Iraq wasn't started to drive prices of oil down, but to run them up.
Yeah, sure.....we went to war to make the al-Sabah clan even richer, right?

A sensible person would see that that could be done simply with an agreement to curtail production.....that's what OPEC does in their meetings, openly and with none of this black-helicopter nonsense.

[Lord Kelvin]

Well, not counting for the fact that they break those agreements several times a year :p

[GoatChomper]

Sometimes the member states do, and that too can be used as a weapon. Look at what happened when the Saudis decided to open the valves wide in 1983 and 1986.....the price per barrel went from a July 1981 high of $41.00 to around $20.00 virtually overnight in 1983, and then to right around $9.00 in the summer of 1986. Overnight, whole portions of the US oil scene went under financially with some of them permanently out of the game.

[Lord Kelvin]

The last one I remember reading about was a year ago, when oil prices first started getting near $50 a barrel. Then it mysteriously dropped because somehow the amount of oil produced in that month exceeded the amount that OPEC agreed that they would supply :rolleyes:.

[GoatChomper]

Well, you have to remember.....not every producer is an OPEC member and in a buy low-sell high model, people will go to other sources when they're cheaper. If you can't sell at the price you want, then you have to follow the herd in its downhill stampede just to unload your holdings.

[marty]

If we were going to invade a country for its oil, we'd invade Mexico.

[SWATJester_os]

You know its sad when Shell is cheap gas......

[velik_m]

Have you been paying attention to the past threads at all?

Where is the logic in driving up prices of oil?


read my post again more expensive oil (note: production costs for oil didn't go up) equals more profit


You drain the spending money of the consumer, which slows down the economy, and basically will eventually make all other byproducts/users of oil go up in both retail value and production price. That's all for a short-sighted gain that will eventually ruin the economy if prices continue to go up.


Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? If you would make billions would you care how the economy is going?


No politician wears a top hat and monacle while sitting around the ticker machine checking the latest oil company stock prices.


maybe, but if they would they would see that values of some of the biggest oil&gas companies has doubled(!) since the start of Iraq war

e.g.
bp
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=BP&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

exxon mobile
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=XOM&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

you can check some others too:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/120_cl_all.html


That's just an incorrect justification to make our efforts look like it's all a grand orchestration.

Use a little logic before you actually post something like that, please.

Maybe is just a coincidence, but i doubt it... and you can't deny greed is a powerfull motive...

just for fun, some more conspiracy theories:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html

[Milkman Dan]

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything? If you would make billions would you care how the economy is going?
A LOT!

You seem to be missing the logic train here. So, I'm going to try my best to break it down to you. Short-sighted gains are a terrible idea. Like how Russia is pushing out oil like nobody's business since oil prices are high, but when oil prices go down their economy could (probably will) slump into a depression since their main income would be gone.

If an entire economy begins to falter your company will begin to falter, too. America's economy is based BIG TIME on oil, seeing as a lot of products are made with oil. If gas prices continue to increase, spending power will continue to decrease. Inexpensive plastic could also become expensive since it is made with oil, which could make household items and such become even bigger drains on their spending power. If it gets to the point where the average person has no spending power, the goods and services industry will probably go under. So, there goes your big income for oil companies. Their operating costs will be higher than their profits, thus causing them to go under. Etc...

Maybe is just a coincidence, but i doubt it... and you can't deny greed is a powerfull motive...]
Your theory doesn't make a great deal of sense considering the consequences of a war profiteering plot based on driving up oil prices and shutting down an economy.

Honestly, man. It's common sense.

[GoatChomper]

read my post again more expensive oil (note: production costs for oil didn't go up) equals more profit
Which means more incentive to drill, which means more production, which means increased supply, which means lowered prices. If you care to look you'll see that the current price spike is nothing new.....the last century shows a twenty-year cycle of increased price ending in a spike, following by tumbling markets.

[SWATJester_os]

It's the basic law of equilibrium.....As long as humans are motivated by greed, price will always equalize as supply overreaches demand, price falls, and humans understanding basic economics will cut back supply. Or in the case of a short supply, with demand spiking, will find ways to cut demand, or increase supply. That's basic macroeconomics/public policy.

[Milkman Dan]

It's the basic law of equilibrium.....As long as humans are motivated by greed, price will always equalize as supply overreaches demand, price falls, and humans understanding basic economics will cut back supply. Or in the case of a short supply, with demand spiking, will find ways to cut demand, or increase supply. That's basic macroeconomics/public policy.
Gasoline is becoming increasingly inelastic. It's hard for demand to honestly be cut back in a country like America without laws enforcing it. Hybrid vehicles are basically hoaxes, since you end up spending so much for one and negating the cost saved on gas consumption.

Does anyone really think supply for oil (comparing to the average) will go up (enough to beat demand) in the next ten years? I sure as hell don't.

[StandingCow]

If America is to continue as the superpower... we will not be as dependent as we are on oil in 10 years.

[Milkman Dan]

If America is to continue as the superpower... we will not be as dependent as we are on oil in 10 years.
That's a pipe dream.

[Lord Kelvin]

Gasoline is becoming increasingly inelastic. It's hard for demand to honestly be cut back in a country like America without laws enforcing it. Hybrid vehicles are basically hoaxes, since you end up spending so much for one and negating the cost saved on gas consumption.

Does anyone really think supply for oil (comparing to the average) will go up (enough to beat demand) in the next ten years? I sure as hell don't.
Well, I'm going on the assumption that if cars are wasting less fuel, then the quantity of gas demanded will fall, which would drop quantity supplied and price, but I might be wrong there.

[Milkman Dan]

Well, I'm going on the assumption that if cars are wasting less fuel, then the quantity of gas demanded will fall, which would drop quantity supplied and price, but I might be wrong there.
That's a rather large assumption. Take a good look on a local street or in a supermarket's parking lot. Notice how many people are driving new(er) cars, and then take a look at how many people are driving old(er) cars. The basis of your theory relies on a good chunk of America going out and purchasing a newer car, seeing as that's where all the efficiency technology goes. That's definitely not going to happen.

Demand for oil in America isn't going to go down. The only slight glimmers of hope to help put a dent in it are the hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles, and alternative fuels. E-85 is probably the best thing out there right now. As I said before, hybrid technology is too expensive to show a real boon to American drivers right now. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are, so far, a novelty. It'll probably end up being a long time before something even slightly resembling a savior of the energy market comes along.

[SOCOM-DELTA]

THE WAR ON TERROR IS A HOAX MAN!!!!!!!!

bush=fascist

neg, bush isn't facist. a facist person would take power by military force. bush is just a half-witted, greedy redneck fucktard.

[SOCOM-DELTA]

That's a pipe dream.

hmm... not necessarily. a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, while only a novelty at this point in time, could be a reality if we invested into determining its plausibility.

[Toastar]

I heard that it will take about 5 years for people to truely start to look for better alternatives, until then they'll keep buying the oil.

[Milkman Dan]

neg, bush isn't facist. a facist person would take power by military force. bush is just a half-witted, greedy redneck fucktard.
For a minute there, I almost thought you were stating a fact instead of an unfounded and incorrect opinion. Phew!

hmm... not necessarily. a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, while only a novelty at this point in time, could be a reality if we invested into determining its plausibility.
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will probably never catch on with this generation or the next. It'll be forever equated, by us, as a major explosion waiting to happen. As for "plausibility", they are in existance. They recently built a nice one, but market perception will ultimately doom its chances of becoming an alternative vehicle in our lifetimes.

Oh yeah, try to make one single post with multiple quotes instead of multiple posts with single quotes. It's seen as post padding.

[Toastar]

they said the same thing about the automobile and the plane.

[Milkman Dan]

they said the same thing about the automobile and the plane.
Maybe, but hydrogen vehicles won't gain popularity in the States until the public is properly educated about them. Plus, the technology is still in its infancy. Horsepower, an American favorite, is not really impressive in hydrogen cars. BMW made a 6 liter V12 engine just to get only 285 horsepower. It might catch on with the Green Peace-type demographic, but not with the rest of America for a long time.

[kreket]

There is talk about searching for oil when the polar caps melt, I've read a news paper article about how there *might* be some more under the north pole.

We already have non-gasoline cars that are usable for lighter tasks, powered by electricity and marketed for the postmodern citydweller. Now, I know that the power might have to come out of a coal plant, but with solar energy and windmill parks popping up there is an alternative. 60 minutes had a story about these cars; it might not carry much, but you could park pretty easy.

[-V-]

There is talk about searching for oil when the polar caps melt, I've read a news paper article about how there *might* be some more under the north pole.
Problem with that is that the north pole is not an actual land body. If it melts, it'll just become part of the newly rechristened Northern Ocean.

On future cars, my bet right now is either on alternate fuel sources, eg. synthetic oil, gassahol, or on electric cars. The second mainly because Toshiba rolled out with a new battery design that holds more amps then a lead-acid and will recharge from dead to 80% compacity in something like 1 minute. http://www.physorg.com/news3539.html

Basically you could drive an electric car, and "fuel it up" like a regular car with propably near the same range. It doesn't solve the problem of supplying more and more energy, but it does reduce our dependence on oil.

[kreket]

Not the north pole itself per say, but the northern areas opened up for oil platforms. There's been continous research into deep drilling technologies. They no longer sacrifice "deep-sea divers".

When the polar caps melt there will be fewer icebergs, something that should stop your expensive oil platforms from getting bulked by mother nature. There's a colonial race that already seems to be happening.

Recent issue over fish, in an uncharted area. Norway is portrayed as an imperialist agressor as it's warships is the closest thing to a law in that region and an important partner in setting up qoutas - two roles that are not necessarily popular or maybe even legitimate.:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4359574.stm

A quarrel over northern hemisphere that isn't oil related, but it is mentioned in the article. There may or may not be something down there worth drilling.:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4175446.stm

[GrosPoisson]

Hats off to Toshiba. I had heard some vague things about static-charged batteries before that would use power generated by braking buses, but this seems much more developed and practical.

They better make some kind of battery-retrofit kit for my Toshiba laptop.

[Noirceur]

And those who aren't brainwashed yet also see that the whole thing is a 'holy' war.

Both sides are acting stupid, both sides could be considered terrorists and both sides think their religion and way of life is correct.

Stupid.
As Lewis Black said, if you can't laugh anything off then you are screwed.

[FaKToR]

If you think we're looking for oil there, than why are our gas prices higher than ever?
Who said they wanted to make oil cheaper?

Obviously we were only in it for the oil, because stopping a cruel dictator who gassed thousands of his own people, and ethnically cleansed tens of thousands more, has repeatedly attacked his neighbors without the thinnest of reasons, and had definitively at one time, and possibly still at this time had a WMD program, after YEARS of warnings, is entirely over the oil.
Well you can't just come out and say "oil" cause people don't usually like going to war over a commodity (nowadays anyway). It's rather absurd to say "he's teh evil" when there were other countries just as bad if not worse that actually had WMDs.

You know, because there's a LOT of oil to be found in Afghanistan, that's why we went to war there.
Afghanistan made more sense than Iraq, that's for sure.

Jesus, you'd think if we wanted the oil we'd have taken it the first time we successfully defeated the Iraqis.
Guess Bush sr. was more conscious of international relations, though the climate was different than it is now. You forget that our allies in the reagion didn't want us invading Iraq then because it would upset the balance of power. Hell the whole Bush Sr. administration trumpeted how they averted a long drawn out occupation...crazy bastards.

Oh right, we let them keep everything, and were rewarded by a corrupt UN Oil for Food program.
Not to mention smuggling which netted more than the oil for food program and we knowingly allowed to happen. We also could have vetoed contracts in the oil for food program but we chose not to, instead doing it mainly for dual use sales. Let's try and keep this all in perspective.
Keep the imperialist us oil robber barons conspiracy off the forums, thanks. It's an insult to those who died there for noble reasons.
Que? People die for all sorts of reasons, and there is disagreement about what those reasons are. I think we are all better served by discussing that disagreement than invoking their deaths to silence our opponents.


Very little oil is coming out of Iraq, and what does is controlled 100% by the Iraqi government, not by the US. But nice try pulling things out of your ass.
Except you neglect to mention that we illegally privatized their economy.

It's the basic law of equilibrium.....As long as humans are motivated by greed, price will always equalize as supply overreaches demand, price falls, and humans understanding basic economics will cut back supply. Or in the case of a short supply, with demand spiking, will find ways to cut demand, or increase supply. That's basic macroeconomics/public policy.
That would be true had you stated "all things being equal" at the beginning. However not all things are equal and various factors were left out of this simplification.

[GoatChomper]

Guess Bush sr. was more conscious of international relations, though the climate was different than it is now. You forget that our allies in the reagion didn't want us invading Iraq then because it would upset the balance of power.
Surely you meant to say that they didn't want Iraq occupied? The 1991 coalition did indeed invade Iraq.

As for their not wanting an invasion, well.....perhaps the political leadership didn't, but their comanders understood maneuver warfare better even if they were prohibited from going any further than Kuwait.

Turkey was an exception.....although they didn't send ground forces across the border, their air force was active over Iraq.
Except you neglect to mention that we illegally privatized their economy.
There was no illegality to it.....the government that owned it ceased to exist.

[FaKToR]

Surely you meant to say that they didn't want Iraq occupied? The 1991 coalition did indeed invade Iraq.
I know we entered Iraq, let me rephrase. They didn't want the Iraqi government overthrown.

There was no illegality to it.....the government that owned it ceased to exist.
What does the Hague convention of 1907 not count anymore? How about the U.S. Army's Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare?

[GoatChomper]

What does the Hague convention of 1907 not count anymore? How about the U.S. Army's Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare?
Moot in light of what I already pointed out.....there was no longer an Iraqi government to posess those previously state-held properties.

[FaKToR]

Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
Doesn't say anything about the government of that nation being intact.

Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
Doesn't say the legitimate authority need continue existing, only that it's power be transfered.

Edit: So you're going to edit it. The people of Iraq still exist, it's still their country and thus national owned assets are theirs, not ours.

Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.

[Milkman Dan]

I know we entered Iraq, let me rephrase. They didn't want the Iraqi government overthrown.


What does the Hague convention of 1907 not count anymore? How about the U.S. Army's Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare?

The Hague Regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country."
I'd consider an entire government being ousted in favor for a completely different one, and a good lot of them being tried for war crimes, defines "prevented". Unless you would want America enforcing Saddam-regime sedition laws?

The Law of Land Warfare also vaguely defines laws that can be altered, suspended, or repealed. So, basically they can do anything they want as long as they put it into a certain context.

[FaKToR]

I'd consider an entire government being ousted in favor for a completely different one, and a good lot of them being tried for war crimes, defines "prevented". Unless you would want America enforcing Saddam-regime sedition laws?
As I recall such sedition laws would be excluded. And no, the government being gone has nothing to do with whether an economy need be privatized.

The Law of Land Warfare also vaguley defines laws that can be altered, suspended, or repealed. So, basically they can do anything they want as long as they put it into a certain context.
Actually it's just referencing the Hague and Geneva conventions really. I used it to help show that we follow these conventions.

[Milkman Dan]

As I recall such sedition laws would be excluded. And no, the government being gone has nothing to do with whether an economy need be privatized.
Well, considering the fact they're switching over to a democratic government I'm sure the public would like to try their hand at wealth. Keeping the oil industry state-owned only prolongs the amount of debt Iraq falls into. Allowing private companies to send channels of money over to help get them back into working order helps the economy recover quicker. Keeping a democratic country's major money-making industry state-owned is a bit of backwards tracking. It's all in the vain of transitioning a country politically and economically.

[FaKToR]

Privatization is an extremely extremely important decision, and one that shouldn't be made by outside countries with conflicts of interest. This is a decision that should only be made by the people who live in that country. It's simply not our place to tell them how to run their economy.

[Milkman Dan]

Privatization is an extremely extremely important decision, and one that shouldn't be made by outside countries with conflicts of interest. This is a decision that should only be made by the people who live in that country. It's simply not our place to tell them how to run their economy.
Prime Minister Allawi has already called for privatization back in August of 2004. Considering their experiences with Saddam's hoarding of oil and its profits, they will definately want to try privatization especially with oil.

[FaKToR]

Prime Minister Allawi has already called for privatization back in August of 2004.
Except he was never elected. He was one of our prewar helpers outside Iraq who was pushing for the war, like the now discredited Chalabi. His opinion means nothing when discussing the views of the Iraqi people.

Considering their experiences with Saddam's hoarding of oil and its profits, they will definately want to try privatization especially with oil.
Regardless of whether the Iraqi people choose to privatize or not, it was still illegal for the U.S. to privatize their economy.

[GoatChomper]

Doesn't say anything about the government of that nation being intact.
You're stuck on something here.....you can't transfer property to an entity that no longer exists. The Ba'ath Party and its operative laws are gone. The fact that said properties are currently in private hands in no way innoculates them from re-nationalization.....a transitional placement into private hands of critical infrastructure and systems is certainly an option preferable to that of them simply lying dormant because the government that owned them is no longer around.

In short, it's a poorly-written bit of wishful thinking that's getting mugged by reality.

[FaKToR]

You're stuck on something here.....you can't transfer property to an entity that no longer exists. The Ba'ath Party and its operative laws are gone.
That's quite the rhetorical slight of hand, it's like playing three card monte. It's not as if the U.S. just happened upon a governmentless country and decided to assume control for their own good, we invaded them. The reason they didn't have a governemnt is because we removed it. It's like a firefighter who commits arson to drudge up business. If we were to accept your interpertation of the Hague Conventions then article 43 would never be of any use in cases were one power totally occupies the other because everytime the occupying power would simply destroy the opposing government thus giving itself total reign. What you're suggesting is that Iraq has been annexed by the U.S.

Your error is that it doesn't matter if the the previous entity does not exist. We assume that role and act in strictly an administrative capacity, we become the governing entity ad interim. It's not as if the assets of the state are in some legal limbo, totally void of ownership. They were owned by the state, acting in place of the state the U.S. can administer them, but they cannot sell them off to private interests. Even if we accepted your position it wouldn't give the U.S. right to sell off the assets to a private group. At best it would allow them to hold such assets until they could be passed to a new Iraqi government.

The fact that said properties are currently in private hands in no way innoculates them from re-nationalization
The issue is not whether it can be undone (though it does make a difference once they've already been privatized), the issue is whether the U.S. could legally do such a thing.

In short, it's a poorly-written bit of wishful thinking that's getting mugged by reality.
It's pillaging posed as a needed solution to a problem we created.

[kreket]

What kind of privatization is this? There are many kinds; selling the right to drilling in an area that gives highly taxable profits is not the same as selling the right to own and produce the oil in an area for a onetime sum of money.

If this is the first than this is present some places even when the state and society owns a drilling and refinery companies themselves.

[FaKToR]

These might help explain:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1079562,00.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm

[kreket]

Among many changes, the US-UK Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), has laid off hundreds of thousands of Iraqi workers, virtually eliminated trade tariffs and enacted laws that radically alter Iraq's economy. Order 39, decreed by CPA head Paul Bremer on September 20 2003, abolished Iraq's ban on foreign investment, allowing foreigners to own up to 100% of all sectors except natural resources. Over 200 state-owned enterprises, including electricity, telecommunications and pharmaceuticals have been privatised. Iraq's highest tax rate has been lowered from 45% to a flat rate of 15%. Although foreign ownership of land remains illegal, companies or individuals will be allowed to lease properties for up to 40 years.


Based on this paragraph it's rather easy to see why a non-baathist sunni would rebel. The largest factor may have been justified; I just don't see kurds and shias being state employed and among those hundred of thousands sacked.

Flat 15% tax?? They must have brought in Chicago School advisors or something.

Yeah, privatisation of electricity and telecommunications works fucking well. It's hard to think of another venue that has as great a potensial for a private monopoly squeezing the users of the grid nets for power and telephones. You don't even need a monopoly; the "cost of profit" for something that is essentially built by the state dramatically increases once mr. private initiative takes over. Trust me; it happened here. This is a small taste of a feudal system when some citizens owns a natural monopoly.

[GoatChomper]

The reason they didn't have a governemnt is because we removed it.
Yes, and.....? You're beginning to see the problem at long last, namely that you can't hand it back over to an entity that no longer exists
It's like a firefighter who commits arson to drudge up business.
Only if you're one of those misguided persons who think that's what the aim was.
If we were to accept your interpertation of the Hague Conventions then article 43 would never be of any use in cases were one power totally occupies the other because everytime the occupying power would simply destroy the opposing government thus giving itself total reign.
Except an invading party doesn't always extirpate.....they may simply impose themselves as another level of authority.
What you're suggesting is that Iraq has been annexed by the U.S.
No, you suggest that with the moot fireman argument.
At best it would allow them to hold such assets until they could be passed to a new Iraqi government.
Which may come to pass. Next?
It's pillaging posed as a needed solution to a problem we created.
"Pillaging" supposes that the party which took over profited. Show us the money you allege to have come into our coffer.
Trust me; it happened here. This is a small taste of a feudal system when some citizens owns a natural monopoly.
Trust me, I used to work for AT&T and had to deal with state-owned telecommunications systems every day. They stank, every last one of them, and the stink was merely a matter of degree.

[Col.Kurtz]

You're 17, so I'll assume you have a naive dogmatic view of the way things really are. The fact is, that you have no idea whatsoever what actually went on in Iraq. If you think we're looking for oil there, than why are our gas prices higher than ever? (Before the hurricanes, can't use them as an excuse). Obviously we were only in it for the oil, because stopping a cruel dictator who gassed thousands of his own people, and ethnically cleansed tens of thousands more, has repeatedly attacked his neighbors without the thinnest of reasons, and had definitively at one time, and possibly still at this time had a WMD program, after YEARS of warnings, is entirely over the oil. You know, because there's a LOT of oil to be found in Afghanistan, that's why we went to war there. And Bosnia, oh yeah, Bosnia and Kosovo had lots of oil, that's why we intervened there. Oh can't forget Grenada. And Somalia. Jesus, you'd think if we wanted the oil we'd have taken it the first time we successfully defeated the Iraqis. Oh right, we let them keep everything, and were rewarded by a corrupt UN Oil for Food program.

Keep the imperialist us oil robber barons conspiracy off the forums, thanks. It's an insult to those who died there for noble reasons.



Very little oil is coming out of Iraq, and what does is controlled 100% by the Iraqi government, not by the US. But nice try pulling things out of your ass.


that part about the noble men sumed upat i believe, it makes me sick to hear people say its a war vs muslims and christians, and the prize is oil,it really is sad how low other countrys can go to defame somthing because they dont agree with it