1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[jillian]

You didn't answer the question.

Er... it was *my* question to you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I did. And he said what he said

Yes. He said that:

I'm not saying that they believed it was about oil.

And thus, its obvious that, according to Greenspan, the administration did -not- go to war over oil.

Truth is, it is obvious that but for oil, we'd never have gone in, regardless of whether that was the stated reason or not.

Show this to be "the truth".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Er... it was *my* question to you.

Yes it was -- posted in an attempt to avoid my question.

 

[jillian]

Yes it was -- posted in an attempt to avoid my question.

You really think Bush, no matter what his motivations, was ever going to come out and say, ok folks, we're going to war over oil ?

You ever read the PNAC letter practically begging Bill Clinton to oust Saddam.? That was back in 1998. I figure if you do read it, you'll know EXACTLY why they went to war because the same people who brought us to this point wrote the letter ...

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Your question wasn't directed at me. And I've already told you what I think and why I think it.

You can take it or leave it. Makes me no nevermind.

 

[DeadCanDance]

the former CENTCOM Commander, General Abazaid, said that “of course” the Iraq war is “about oil“:

“Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,” Abizaid said of the Iraq campaign early on in the talk.

“We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations,” the retired general said. “Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back. Osama and 9/11 is the distilled essence that represents everything going on out back.”

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/10/15/roundtableDebatesEnergyIssues

 

[M14 Shooter]

You really think Bush, no matter what his motivations, was ever going to come out and say, ok folks, we're going to war over oil ?

Ah yes -- the absence of proof is proof!
The mantra of consipracy nuts everywhere.

You ever read the PNAC letter practically begging Bill Clinton to oust Saddam.? That was back in 1998. I figure if you do read it, you'll know EXACTLY why they went to war because the same people who brought us to this point wrote the letter ...

Why yes, I -have- read it.
Why dont you quote to me the part where it supports the idea that the war was about oil, rather than things like security for our friends, the lives or our soldiers, and the stability of the region -- indeed, the world -- in general.

Oh. You tried that. I guess its not really there, is it.

Your question wasn't directed at me.

That you responded to it means you took it up -- and still havent answered it.

And I've already told you what I think and why I think it.

Yes. Points you cannot support.

 

[jillian]

Once again this is why conversing with you is akin to

You read responses and your idea of debate is not to question or discuss the content but to pretend no one has addressed your question.

B-O-R-I-N-G

 

[M14 Shooter]

Once again this is why conversing with you is akin to

You read responses and your idea of debate is not to question or discuss the content but to pretend no one has addressed your question.

B-O-R-I-N-G

And, even more boring, you ignore the content of the posts you're addressing, trying to lead the conversation away from a place you know you haven't a leg to stand on, to somehere you think can spin your way into (what you think to be) a sound position.

 

[jillian]

And, even more boring, you ignore the content of the posts you're addressing, trying to lead the conversation away from a place you know you haven't a leg to stand on, to somehere you think can spin your way into (what you think to be) a sound position.

Trust me, your posts aren't so perplexing that they can't be answered.

As I've told you before, I don't beat dead horses and I don't allow people to pretend I haven't answered a post when I have. You may not have liked my answers. You may wish me to answer differently.

To that I say...

Tough

 

[M14 Shooter]

Trust me, your posts aren't so perplexing that they can't be answered.

And yet you dont asnwer them.

To wit:

I believe that the first building to be secured by coalition troops upon the fall of Baghdad was the oil ministry..... and while we stood guard there, we allowed the national museum to be looted.

This qualifies as "proof" to you?

As I've told you before, I don't beat dead horses and I don't allow people to pretend I haven't answered a post when I have.

So, where was your answer?

Oh, and this one, too:

Truth is, it is obvious that but for oil, we'd never have gone in, regardless of whether that was the stated reason or not.

Show this to be "the truth".

 

[jillian]

And yet you dont asnwer them.

To wit:

This qualifies as "proof" to you?

Wasn't my post. I raised a query about whether it was indicative of priorities. And it was, of course, but I'm still waiting for you to respond to *that*. I'll assume you can't respond.

Next....

So, where was your answer?

Asked and answered, bubbie

Oh, and this one, too:


Show this to be "the truth".

You read the PNAC letter. Again, I'm not going to hold your hand for you. Read and comprehend and respond. Otherwise.... like I said, I can't be bothered.

Over and out.

Cheers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wasn't my post...

...but you made it your question when you butt in to the conversation.

And since you havent responded to the original quesion, I'll assume its because you cannot -- which is really sad, given it demands a yes/no response.

Truth is, it is obvious that but for oil, we'd never have gone in, regardless of whether that was the stated reason or not.

Show this to be "the truth".

Read the PNAC letter.

Please explain how this shows your claim to be "the truth", when the PNAC letter talks about things like security for our friends, the lives or our soldiers, and the stability of the region -- indeed, the world -- in general -- as reasons for going into Iraq.

If all you have is the PNAC letter to Clinton, the your position is more pathetic than I thought -- if the REAL reason we went to war was for oil, surely there'd be all kinds of evidence to that end.

Again, I'm not going to hold your hand for you. Read and comprehend and respond. Otherwise.... like I said, I can't be bothered.
Over and out.

How does that go?
Oh, yeah:
[montypython]
Run away!! Run away!!!
[/montypython]

 

[jillian]

What are you, the freaking black knight?

Black Knight: [calling after King Arthur] Oh! Had enough, eh? Come back and take what's coming to you, you yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/quotes

RAFLMAO!

And this is a messageboard, bubbalah... I can "butt in" where I choose... especially when you're making yourself look silly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What are you, the freaking black knight?

You don't have to like the fact that you're intellectually dishonest -- but really, if you cannot admit it to me, you should admit it to yourself.

Once you do, get back to me.

 

[Diuretic]

Then there needs to be a solution from inside Iraq. Time to divide the country into three, allocate the oil between them, make our deals and get out.

Sounds like a plan to me.

 

[Diuretic]

Show this to be true.
I'll especially be interested in the statements of US civilian and military leadership, to this effect.

I'd hop over there and do a few interviews but I'm a bit tied up here at the moment.

Okay, remember the rush to secure the oil ministry? No rush to find WMD, just get into that oil ministry.

QED.

 

[Diuretic]

I believe that the first building to be secured by coalition troops upon the fall of Baghdad was the oil ministry..... and while we stood guard there, we allowed the national museum to be looted.

Sorry MM, still reading through and I hopped in without realising you'd already pinned this one down.

 

[Diuretic]

This qualifies as "proof" to you?

To a reasonably objective person it's proof, to the partisan Bushista nothing will ever amount to proof.

 

[Diuretic]

Once again this is why conversing with you is akin to

You read responses and your idea of debate is not to question or discuss the content but to pretend no one has addressed your question.

B-O-R-I-N-G

We're in the middle of a federal election - politicians avoiding direct questions is breaking out all over the place

 

[Diuretic]

What are you, the freaking black knight?



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/quotes

RAFLMAO!

And this is a messageboard, bubbalah... I can "butt in" where I choose... especially when you're making yourself look silly.

There's a Monty Python scene for every occasion!