For all those MORONS who doubted Saddam had WMD's

[BaronVonBigmeat]

That being the case, you'd think they'd be invading....er, I mean investing more in Canada. Apparently we can't get the oil out of the ground fast enough. They can't even find enough skinners to prep drilling sites.

Well, I'm not actually sure that the invasion of Iraq was about oil. I mean, we could have gotten plenty by just dropping sanctions. So I'm not sure I buy the oil conspiracy angle. From what I've read, I tend to think that we have an unspoken policy of boxing in Russia and China, in order to have leverage against them, perhaps in case they get any funny ideas about dumping their dollar reserves. Or maybe we simply needed another boogeyman after the USSR fell.

Speaking of investing in Canada...man I wish I had invested in Suncor the last couple of years. My house downpayment would now be about enough to buy a house outright. Doh!

 

[Gunny]

So it doesn't matter that Saddam was no threat to the US, only that he possessed WMD's?

Saddam was a threat to every Nation in Southwest Asia. Apparently, a bad enough threat that those other Arab Nations were willing to back US, not Saddam.
1) Why the rush to war in 2003, instead of say...1983, when those WMD's could actually kill people?

2) Why don't we attack other dictatorships which have WMD's? Actual, working WMD's? Or more importantly, nukes--it doesn't take a genius to make chemical weapons or conventional bombs.

How about China, Russia, North Korea? How about Pakistan, the nuclear-equipped muslim dictatorship that is our ally? How about Libya? Khadaffi actually DID sponsor terrorists and was linked to the 200-something people killed when that one airplane exploded. Now he's had a change of heart (read: allowed western oil companies in), so he's one of us now.

Does this "what-if-ery" go anywhere? If so, where, exactly?

 

[Hobbit]

Not so much.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=XOM
Exxon-Mobil Profit Margin (ttm): 10.83%
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=KR
Kroger Co Profit Margin (ttm): 1.56%

BP - 7.15%
Safeway - 1.48%

There, now you've seen a source that says otherwise. And you know what? I'm pretty sure you're fabricating your "statistics" there.

Sorry I let this slide for two days. This kinda got buried. I went and rechecked my statistics, and yeah, retail has a lower profit margin. My bad. It's banks and pharmaceuticals that have an enourmously higher profit margin. Retail is the bottom of the barrel, but I still don't see liberals calling for Bank of America (profit margin %15) to hand over their profits.

You seem to be confused.
Exxon could sell gas for 50 cents less per gallon and still remain profitable.
So, you ask, why don't they?
Because, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. There are people willing to pay $70 per barrel. They're futures traders.

Exxon isn't a trading organization. It's a manufacturing and distribution company. And what's so bad about charging $70 a barrel anyway if people. You also fail to account for high income taxes. Oil's expensive. It's expensive to get. It's expensive to process. It also costs a lot to pay out dividends to shareholders. Trust me, if Exxon could afford to sell for less, they would. The free market demands no less (economists and a federal investigation back me up).

Now, if you want to buy something on Ebay, it doesn't matter if what you're buying cost the seller $2 or $20, if someone else is willing to pay $50 for it, then you have to pay $50 if you want it.

Same thing is happening now. Oil companies are drilling for oil, it's costing them $40-50 per barrel. Futures traders are willing to pay $70, so if we want some, we have to pay $70 also.[/quote]

And what's wrong with that? It's a free market and the reason those futures traders are willing to trade for so much is due to the very real possibility of the further destabilization of much of the Middle East. If that happens, we'll be glad they hoarded oil when they could.

Yes, there is competition on the supply side of things, but you're 100% ignoring the demand side. Like I illustrated earlier, if someone else is willing to pay $70, then you have to pay $70 as well.

This is the part where you stop making any sense, whatsoever. You can't monopolize demand. Even if you could, it would be stupid. Economics 101 (which I have taken from a guy with a Ph.D. in the subject): The invisible hand of economics as described by Adam Smith manipulates prices in the absence of collusion. The price that anything moves toward is the one at which every bit of that commodity that is made is sold. As the price goes up, more is made (as it's more profitable). As the price goes down, more is sold. When the price reaches a point at which all that is made is also sold, it has reached its ideal price. Without collusion working against the invisible hand, it always moves towards this ideal prices thusly: If the price is too high and too much is made, there is a surplus. Suppliers must eliminate their inventory to maximize profits. As such, they cut prices to attract more buyers, since getting less money than expected is better than no money at all. If the price is too low, then more is demanded than supplied and there is a shortage. Suppliers quickly realize that they can raise their prices and still sell their entire inventory, so they do so. Right now, gasoline corporations have raised their prices due to a shortage caused not by these villianous futures traders (who profit from, not create, shortages), but by an increase in the number of buyers. China and India consume more gas than they need to, and Americans drive more and more. Then there's, once again, the fact that the situations in Iran and Venezuela have led to rush on gas. This rush leads to shortage.

Not at all, it just requires a little common sense.

Economists disagree.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Have you guys ever thought that high gas prices might be a good thing?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The whole problem that liberals have with this, is the same problem that they have always had. They were wrong. The people that are saying that the sarin gas isn't dangerous are the same people that were asking where the WMD's were the day after the invasion. Liberals have never given this war a chance. Not because they don't believe in the goal, but because they hate the President. They hate war and killing people. They think we should all hold hands with Hugo Chavez and sing we are the world. They don't want the WMD's to exist, so that they won't be proven wrong.

 

[Hobbit]

Have you guys ever thought that high gas prices might be a good thing?

As I asserted in my post (kind of). High gas prices a bad thing? I prefer that to the draconian rationing in the 70s. According to economics, lowering the gas prices at this point would create a shortage, as the gas prices have pretty stably set at the 'ideal price.'

 

[CharlestonChad]

These WMD's were found a few years ago, so why would Americans just find out about them? B/C it's an election year, and many voters just read headlines on FOX "WMD's found in Iraq!!!". That equates to conservatives and moderates who are uninformed thinking the war in Iraq was justified, resulting in their support of the war mongering republican party.

ps: not one person with any intelligence doubted that he HAD wmd's, but they were not longer wmd's b/c of the degrade of the chemicals. The UN inspectors knew that and these are not the weapons bush and rumsfeld told us about when getting the US to support an invasion in Iraq.

 

[Gunny]

These WMD's were found a few years ago, so why would Americans just find out about them? B/C it's an election year, and many voters just read headlines on FOX "WMD's found in Iraq!!!". That equates to conservatives and moderates who are uninformed thinking the war in Iraq was justified, resulting in their support of the war mongering republican party.

ps: not one person with any intelligence doubted that he HAD wmd's, but they were not longer wmd's b/c of the degrade of the chemicals. The UN inspectors knew that and these are not the weapons bush and rumsfeld told us about when getting the US to support an invasion in Iraq.

What's the point of bringing them out when it just set the left to ranting "the fix is in," in one manner or another.

My idea of uninformed thinking would be the continual attempt to base the invasion of Iraq soley on the issue of WMDs. The fact of the matter is, Saddam had tons of bio and chemical weapons he could not account for. Factoring that in with his proving his willingness to use them by doing so on at least two occasions, and his behavior as if he was hiding something, AND the fact most of the world's intelligence agencies believed the same thing ours did at the time, an intelligent human could do nothing BUT assume he possessed WMDs and was more than willing to use them.

You're using the typical, liberal argument that without a bunch of dead bodies created by the aforementioned WMDs, there is no evidence. Well, whatever dude. I don't have to let a snake bite me to know he will if he can.

 

[CharlestonChad]

What's the point of bringing them out when it just set the left to ranting "the fix is in," in one manner or another.

My idea of uninformed thinking would be the continual attempt to base the invasion of Iraq soley on the issue of WMDs. The fact of the matter is, Saddam had tons of bio and chemical weapons he could not account for. Factoring that in with his proving his willingness to use them by doing so on at least two occasions, and his behavior as if he was hiding something, AND the fact most of the world's intelligence agencies believed the same thing ours did at the time, an intelligent human could do nothing BUT assume he possessed WMDs and was more than willing to use them.

You're using the typical, liberal argument that without a bunch of dead bodies created by the aforementioned WMDs, there is no evidence. Well, whatever dude. I don't have to let a snake bite me to know he will if he can.

Regardless of how quickly the media caught on to this vote getting crusade by the Rep. party, Bush's poll numbers still went up, so the ploy was a success.

Everyone assumed he had WMD's and was ready to assume them. Rumsfeld went on record telling the public that he knew Suddam had them and he knew where in Iraq they were. Then a few weeks ago Rumsfeld was asked why we haven't found the WMD's he told us about, and Rumsfeld said he "never said he knew where they were".

Never did I use "the typical, liberal argument that without a bunch of dead bodies created by the aforementioned WMDs, there is no evidence."

 

[jimnyc]

These WMD's were found a few years ago, so why would Americans just find out about them? B/C it's an election year, and many voters just read headlines on FOX "WMD's found in Iraq!!!". That equates to conservatives and moderates who are uninformed thinking the war in Iraq was justified, resulting in their support of the war mongering republican party.

ps: not one person with any intelligence doubted that he HAD wmd's, but they were not longer wmd's b/c of the degrade of the chemicals. The UN inspectors knew that and these are not the weapons bush and rumsfeld told us about when getting the US to support an invasion in Iraq.

Can you please cite references to show either the USA or international inspectors knew there was no more than useless weapons - prior to the invasion? I think I recall the last few reports from inspectors before the invasion, that they declared Iraq in material breach and uncooperative, and that certain chemicals tagged by prior inspectors were missing and Iraq failed/refused to account for them. I think I also recall several other powerful nations declaring that Iraq had WMD's. I don't recall these reports you speak of and would like to read them for myself.

 

[Said1]

Here they are, the quotes at least!

 

[jimnyc]

Here they are, the quotes at least!

I'm confused, as I don't see any quotes. Are you implying there were no such official reports by the inspectors?

 

[Said1]

I'm confused, as I don't see any quotes. Are you implying there were no such official reports by the inspectors?

Stop asking questions, figure it out for yourself.

 

[jimnyc]

Can you please cite references to show either the USA or international inspectors knew there was no more than useless weapons - prior to the invasion?

Is that the sound of crickets I hear?

 

[Gunny]

Regardless of how quickly the media caught on to this vote getting crusade by the Rep. party, Bush's poll numbers still went up, so the ploy was a success.

Everyone assumed he had WMD's and was ready to assume them. Rumsfeld went on record telling the public that he knew Suddam had them and he knew where in Iraq they were. Then a few weeks ago Rumsfeld was asked why we haven't found the WMD's he told us about, and Rumsfeld said he "never said he knew where they were".

Never did I use "the typical, liberal argument that without a bunch of dead bodies created by the aforementioned WMDs, there is no evidence."

Fact is, he DID have WMDs. Our own CIA taught his monkeys how to refine mustard gas (chemical agent/WMD) during the Iran-Iraq War. He used WMDs on at least two occasions.

He could not or would not account for his his WMDs to UN Inspectors as required by the ceasefire agreement. He gave UN inspectors the run-around, or expelled them for 13 years. I find it hard to believe a man who had nothing to hide would spend over a decade acting as if he was hiding something, and rattling his saber every 3-6 months.

If he did not have any WMDs, then he played a fool's hand and he got what he deserved for it.

It is my opinion that anyone who willfully disregards any and/or all of the actual facts surrounding the issue for no more reason than to call Bush and/or members of his administration liars, again, is not interested in the truth; rather, just slinging mud.

It also is fact that Bush/Cheney acted on erroneous information. For some reason, you Bush-bashers are determined to accuse them of lying when they were in fact making statements based on the information they had at the time. Amending those statements at a later time in order to reflect new information isn't lying except in the minds of Bush-bashers. It's a practice carried out every day by billions if they want to get past square one on any endeavor.

Instead of pointing a finger at our own, let's be honest and point it at who is to blame -- Saddam Hussein. All he had to do was comply with the agreement HE signed in order to have the serious ass-whooping he was taking stopped. He was a cruel, ruthless, genocidal maniac who had already proven he would stop at nothing to get what he wanted; which, included pursuing, possessing, and using WMDs.

 

[mattskramer]

Well, congratulations. It sure took us long enough. How do we know these supposed WMD were not planted by us? No. I’m not a conspiracy buff but I would not be surprised. I remember when our government said that we had no spy plane over the old USSR. Anyway, these are old and weak WMD, right? What specifically is a WMD? I had an old but powerful shotgun. If someone used it just right, he could probably kill 2 people with one shot? Therefore does that count as a WMD? How massive must this destruction be to have the weapon classified as a WMD? :firing:

 

[Gunny]

Well, congratulations. It sure took us long enough. How do we know these supposed WMD were not planted by us? No. I’m not a conspiracy buff but I would not be surprised. I remember when our government said that we had no spy plane over the old USSR. Anyway, these are old and weak WMD, right? What specifically is a WMD? I had an old but powerful shotgun. If someone used it just right, he could probably kill 2 people with one shot? Therefore does that count as a WMD? How massive must this destruction be to have the weapon classified as a WMD? :firing:

Hardly an original idea. It's been common knowledge "the fix is in" would be the immediate response from the left when WMDs were found. At least you're true to form.

Can you argue ANYTHING without trying to literalize it out of context? WMDs, for the purpose of this argument are nuclear, chemical and/or biological weapons, and/or any of their components.

And of course we denied having spy planes over the USSR. The key word being "spy.":duh3:

 

[CockySOB]

Well, congratulations. It sure took us long enough. How do we know these supposed WMD were not planted by us? No. I’m not a conspiracy buff but I would not be surprised. I remember when our government said that we had no spy plane over the old USSR. Anyway, these are old and weak WMD, right? What specifically is a WMD? I had an old but powerful shotgun. If someone used it just right, he could probably kill 2 people with one shot? Therefore does that count as a WMD? How massive must this destruction be to have the weapon classified as a WMD? :firing:

Why would it take so long to find a hidden cache of weapons? Gee, perhaps because Iraq covers over 430,000 square miles. The fact that they were "hidden" might also have a wee bit to do with the difficulty in finding them, don't ya think?

As to the "old and weak WMD" comment. you really, REALLY need to try even a basic web search for "mustard gas." But I'll save you a little time and try to give it to you in a nutshell.

Mustard gas is the common term for a number of vesicants which are derived from sulphur mustards either containing impurities (type H) or distilled (type HD). Mustard gas attacks and destroys tissue on contact, most often the skin, eyes, mouth throat and lungs. In relatively cool teperatures, mustard gas hangs low to the ground, but in warmer climes, mustard gas vaporizes easily making it a much more serious threat for internal injury. The exact mechanism for this destructive action isn't known, but one prominent theory revolves around DNA alkylation. Regardless, mustard gas has been widely used in warfare since World War I as a "weapon of mass destruction." The destruction has a variable timeline for each afflicted person, but it is destruction none the less.

BTW, in this 1999 report by the UN, would seem to indicate that the mustard gas in the shells would likely retain high viability. It would also seem to provide information regarding the origin of the "found" munitions.

33. Iraq declared that 550 shells filled with mustard had been "lost" shortly after the Gulf War. To date, no evidence of the missing munitions has been found. Iraq claimed that the chemical warfare agents filled into these weapons would be degraded a long time ago and, therefore, there would be no need for their accounting. However, a dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former CW storage facility in the period 1997-1998. The chemical sampling of these munitions, in April 1998, revealed that the mustard was still of the highest quality. After seven years, the purity of mustard ranged between 94 and 97%. Thus, Iraq has to account for these munitions which would be ready for combat use. The resolution of this specific issue would also increase confidence in accepting Iraq’s other declarations on losses of chemical weapons which it has not been possible to verify.

Here's a link to more information on mustard gas and other vesicants.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/army/mmcch/Vesicant.htm

 

[Redhots]

Why do you guys continue to make new threads about this issue after someone points out its all a bunch of hyped bullshit? This is like the third or fourth one I've seen.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=446347&postcount=30

As to the "old and weak WMD" comment. you really, REALLY need to try even a basic web search for "mustard gas." But I'll save you a little time and try to give it to you in a nutshell.

Thanks for the kind gesture, but I think i'll go with David Kay on this one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201475.html

They probably would have been intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, said David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004.

He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.

And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said.

Just let it go guys...

 

[Gunny]

Why do you guys continue to make new threads about this issue after someone points out its all a bunch of hyped bullshit? This is like the third or fourth one I've seen.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=446347&postcount=30



Thanks for the kind gesture, but I think i'll go with David Kay on this one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201475.html



Just let it go guys...

Let what go? Would you be willing to go with David Kay to teh point that you'd be willing to be exposed to the sarin to prove his assumption?

I bet not.