Turn on thread page Beta

Fox News: Your source for Objective News watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    hmm, you dont believe that do you...
    Errr no ... the sarcastic smiley ...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    Errr no ... the sarcastic smiley ...
    so what was the point?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    so what was the point?

    >>"yes, if there is a possiblity that leaving him there could have done far more damage." - Well the same could be said for any country really (those with the capability anyway), why is it an excuse to kill thousands of lives?

    >>to save more, and importantly, ones that politically matter.

    >>Yes!!! You are right, Saddam was ready to attack and destroy not only USA but the whole world!!!!
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i dont know about u but i thought we were talking about national defense..



    to save more, and importantly, ones that politically matter.
    You are a monster
    J
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    You are a monster
    J
    I can't disagree ...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    you are clearly nuts...
    Is this personal insult an illustration of the 'intelligent debate' you are desirous of?

    You never used to be so abusive when you first joined this forum, now you seem to seek every opportunity to ridicule those who do not have your years. There is no trophy to be won in these tactics. Show respect and you will probably get some back. If not, do not stoop to demeaning those who disagree with you, rather, ignore the provocation as someone of your (?) maturity should!!

    It is much harder to convince others of the merits of one's contributions if one indulges in cutting remarks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    Is this personal insult an illustration of the 'intelligent debate' you are desirous of?
    yes. i dont need to draw the obvious stupidity in comparing Hitlers 'assumptions' about Jews with the educated-concerns of any government over a possible threat to national defence.

    You never used to be so abusive when you first joined this forum, now you seem to seek every opportunity to ridicule those who do not have your years. There is no trophy to be won in these tactics. Show respect and you will probably get some back. If not, do not stoop to demeaning those who disagree with you, rather, ignore the provocation as someone of your (?) maturity should!!
    ridicule? where?
    demeaning? where?!
    provocation? where?!?!

    i was struck half way through his post by the sheer idiocy of it. not to mention the fact that i have addressed his points on no less than 2 or 3 occasions. forgive me for calling a spade a spade.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    You are a monster
    J
    hehe..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    >>Yes!!! You are right, Saddam was ready to attack and destroy not only USA but the whole world!!!!
    erm, no he wasnt. but that doesnt mean that he wasnt a threat period.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    to save more.
    How exactly?

    Thousands were killed, and buildings/farms/food supply etc were destroyed - Don't tell me that the state of Iraq is better now than it was before - Because buildings still need building and farms etc need to be re-done again, America won't pay for all of that.

    Don't be fooled by the pics on TV of American's giving them food - They were better offbefore hand in terms of food/water/home's to live in, in general.

    And think - Why would the US President risk his reputation, spend a fortune, risk lives of his own citizens, and run the risk of more massive future conflicts, if he wasn't trying to achieve something?

    It's either oil that would really help, or getting rid of Saddam who they used to supply weapons to anyway.....:rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    but that doesnt mean that he wasnt a threat period.
    how was he a threat period, enough so that it's worth wasting millions, lives killed of both Iraqi and US/UK People, possibility of future wars/conflicts etc?

    America used to give him weapons, and the last time weapons was used by Saddam was absolutely years ago.

    It's rather random to suddenly say "he could blow up countries, let's go to war." many years later.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    no. there was an effort of intelligence.
    ...
    hard evidence, probably not no.
    What more can I say...

    (Original post by vienna95)
    get real.
    My thoughts exactly. Since the war nearly all focus has been on this trivial issue. Finally now we are going to have a much demanded inquiry (though I wonder how fair it will be after the disgracefully biased Hutton report).

    (Original post by vienna95)
    large-scale war?!?
    Over 10,000 civilian deaths
    Over 600 allied forces deaths
    Thats large scale enough dont you think.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    the instability?!? the world!?!
    Yes, there is instability in the world, heighted more so by the Iraq war. Just a few of the countless examples:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...aq/default.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...rt/default.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3494415.stm

    (Original post by vienna95)
    2001 ---> 2003
    Yes but what new evidence for WMDs has there been in this period? What evidence is there to link Saddam with AlQuaeda? Vienna, do you honestly belive that behind the scenes the main reason for going to war was to remove the WMDs?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    How exactly?

    Thousands were killed, and buildings/farms/food supply etc were destroyed - Don't tell me that the state of Iraq is better now than it was before - Because buildings still need building and farms etc need to be re-done again, America won't pay for all of that.

    Don't be fooled by the pics on TV of American's giving them food - They were better offbefore hand in terms of food/water/home's to live in, in general.

    And think - Why would the US President risk his reputation, spend a fortune, risk lives of his own citizens, and run the risk of more massive future conflicts, if he wasn't trying to achieve something?

    It's either oil that would really help, or getting rid of Saddam who they used to supply weapons to anyway.....:rolleyes:
    I think this oil motive for war is a complete and utter myth.

    First of all it seems to me that crude oil is NOT in short supply at this time. London Brent crude is currently trading at a modest $30.58 a barrel. This low price tells me that there is if anything a market surplus of crude. Am I right?

    Yes! As a matter of fact The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries a couple days ago pledged to reduce it's official supply limits by 1 million barrels per day to 23.5 million bpd from April to counter a decline in fuel demand and hence protect the market value of crude.

    If all this is so, then why would the US need to invade a country and "steal" it's oil when they can simply buy it?

    I could see the argument if OPEC reduced supply to the point where we arrived as $60/70 a barrel but invading someone for oil when you can buy it for $30? I don't buy it.










    London Brent crude was up one cent at $30.58 a barrel after jumping more than $1 last week following OPEC's decision to cut supply from April 1. Volumes were low because of industry functions in London while U.S. crude on the New York Mercantile Exchange was closed for the Presidents' Day holiday.


    The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries pledged to reduced its to cut official supply limits by 1 million barrels per day to 23.5 million bpd from April to counter a seasonal second quarter decline in fuel demand after the northern winter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    you are clearly nuts...
    Thanks for the diagnosis, elaborate please
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhaal85)
    Well, I was for the war, and I'm not particularly bothered that they didn't find any WMOD, though they may be still there. The main thing, is that they captured Saddam, who was a right brutal and immoral little man, and thats what counts. No doubt that the fighting will countinue, but I think it was worth it, I mean, does anybody remeber when they uncovered those bodies which where buried alive? The mass graves, God only knows how many people have already suffered.
    and it was worth the death of 10.000 people to capture Saddam? Wake up
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i dont know about u but i thought we were talking about national defense..

    to save more, and importantly, ones that politically matter.
    bono madea good point about the duty of proof.

    and what is politically important? maybe oil? geostrategy? You are as hypocritical as bush & co, pretending to be interested in improving the lives of the Iraquis and actually looking at a map how to get the biggest influence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    Yes!!! You are right, Saddam was ready to attack and destroy not only USA but the whole world!!!!

    :rolleyes:
    actually, mars was included in his plans
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    Is this personal insult an illustration of the 'intelligent debate' you are desirous of?

    You never used to be so abusive when you first joined this forum, now you seem to seek every opportunity to ridicule those who do not have your years. There is no trophy to be won in these tactics. Show respect and you will probably get some back. If not, do not stoop to demeaning those who disagree with you, rather, ignore the provocation as someone of your (?) maturity should!!

    It is much harder to convince others of the merits of one's contributions if one indulges in cutting remarks.
    thanks... even though I´m not that much younger than her and sometimes I have slight doubts about her experience level as well! anyway, I don´t mind. I just mind when she doesn´t respond to a post but insult it, that leaves me somehow affriemd but unsatisfied
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    yes. i dont need to draw the obvious stupidity in comparing Hitlers 'assumptions' about Jews with the educated-concerns of any government over a possible threat to national defence.
    .
    I was solely talking about the system and methods of their propaganda! read my posts
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I think this oil motive for war is a complete and utter myth.

    First of all it seems to me that crude oil is NOT in short supply at this time. London Brent crude is currently trading at a modest $30.58 a barrel. This low price tells me that there is if anything a market surplus of crude. Am I right?

    Yes! As a matter of fact The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries a couple days ago pledged to reduce it's official supply limits by 1 million barrels per day to 23.5 million bpd from April to counter a decline in fuel demand and hence protect the market value of crude.

    If all this is so, then why would the US need to invade a country and "steal" it's oil when they can simply buy it?

    I could see the argument if OPEC reduced supply to the point where we arrived as $60/70 a barrel but invading someone for oil when you can buy it for $30? I don't buy it.

    London Brent crude was up one cent at $30.58 a barrel after jumping more than $1 last week following OPEC's decision to cut supply from April 1. Volumes were low because of industry functions in London while U.S. crude on the New York Mercantile Exchange was closed for the Presidents' Day holiday.


    The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries pledged to reduced its to cut official supply limits by 1 million barrels per day to 23.5 million bpd from April to counter a seasonal second quarter decline in fuel demand after the northern winter.
    You´re not completely wrong, but the point about the oil is not necessarily a price difference NOW but the security of not being supresible by threads from the OPEC side. If the opec ever manages to stick together...
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.