From our liberal friends at the New York Times:

quote:

---

Al Qadisiya and Al Qaqaa. Al Radwan, for example, was a manufacturing plant for the uranium enrichment program, with enormous machine tools for making highly specialized parts, according to the Wisconsin Project. The Nida Factory was implicated in both the nuclear program and the manufacture of Scud missiles.

Al Qaqaa, with some 1,100 structures, manufactured powerful explosives that could be used for conventional missile warheads and for setting off a nuclear detonation.

---

(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=15a9e4f8df0af7c4&ex=1127707200&oref=login } user:enternow pass:qwerty
There you have it, right from one of the most Liberal mainstream newspapers in America. That's right, they just admitted that there was a uranium enrichment program in Iraq, and they go on to say that they are worried about proliferation. Hmm, sounds an awful lot like what george bush was saying as a reason to go into the war. I swear, if I hear one more person mindlessly chanting "bush lied, people died," I think I'm going to flip out. Bush didn't lie, and even the new york times has admitted it. If we hadn't gone to war in iraq, how hard do you think it would be for Al Qaeda to either convince saddam hussein, who was torturintg his own people, to let them use some uranium to get rid of the american "infidels"? This war was about defending our country, and we're doing a pretty good job. We've also managed to capture or kill over 75% of the leaders in the terrorist infrastructure. While the saying goes "for every terrorist that you kill, two more take their place", this cannot be said about the leaders. we have destroyed their organization, and turned them from an organization set out to destroy the american people to loose bands of rebels, who occasionally
blow themselves up, or try snipe american troops, which usually meant, in the paraphrased words of a milblogger "some guy with an ak on a roof taking potshots at us."

If there really was anything dubious in Iraq, Intelligence would know about it. If intelligence actually HAD found something, they would have been more than happy enough to report it to someone, who would have verified it through research.

Intelligence did no such thing, and now NYTimes has found 'scraps' that make it look justified.

They never found WMDs, only pretended that they did. The war is for oil, its so blinking obvious.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And Im a Million Different People
From One Day to the Next
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, because there is SO much oil in Iraq and the US is SO pressed for oil. The area that will benefit the most from all of this is in the form of construction contracts and agriculture/food development, products and sells. Texas has more oil than Iraq. Colorado has more oil than Iraq. Alaska has more oil than Iraq. Want me to go on?

They have found uranium enrichment (although not yet to the degree of being able to make a nuclear bomb, they were attempting to,). They were producing chemical weapons. They had ballistic missiles developed for chemical weapons. We found all the chemical components. If they weren't making wmd's against UN regulations, why did they kick out the weapons inspectors? Why did they constantly refuse to let them investigate certain areas that were suspected for the production of wmds?

You expect us to know everything in an entire country (Iraqs landsize also is not that small).

Also, you know as well as I do how biased the media can be. They will publish one side of a story constantly and just mention the other side. You see this all the time.

Nandini I agree with you. But I am not proud of my governmental decrees and my sacred rights and liberties. If you ask me America needs changes too. My pride is nothing you know of so please do not tell me what I was taught to believe.


Dogsi Where in my quote does the word religion pop up. As far as my understanding you have taken this conversation totally of point.


Katelyn Yes indeed you told me that before,but did it ever occur that I got your massage before entering other debates?

Sorry topgun, said the wrong name, meant to say nandini

Dogsi Don't worry now that it all clear.


Katelyn sorry said it wrong the first time I ment did it ever occur I got your massage late?

No. Sorry. Iraq is the second largest oil reserve in the world. Second only to KSA.

Its a nice pool to have. I'd trade Alaska for Iraq any day.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And Im a Million Different People
From One Day to the Next
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Try looking up the Venezuelan Orinoco oil belt some time. It's not listed because given current extraction means, it is not cost effecient. Not that it CAN'T be cost effecient, just it wouldn't be given current methods. As such, it does not fall under the requirements to be listed as a "proven" oil reserve.

Or maybe the 1.2 trillion barrels of shell oil in colorado. Or the returnable oil sources in Alaska that put it over the known oil reserves of Iraq (although not over Iraq's known and returnable oil reserves).

Try looking up Russia's oil reserves, which are now estimated to be larger than Saudi's by a long shot, the biggest problem they are having is actually measuring it.

Try looking up Canada's sand oil reserves, which are larger than Iran and Iraq's. BTW, Iran has more oil than Iraq too.

Iraq is ranked 4th in KNOWN oil reserves, after Saudi, Canada(2nd) and Iran, ranked 8th after returnable oil reserves and 12th after all oil reserves are taken in to consideration, this not counting many known oil reserves that simply have not been measured, such as the massive oil reserves of Korean pinensilla (yeah I know I spelled it wrong). The way in which they measure "known oil reserves" cuts out more oil reserves than it allows. The known oil reserves are simply the ones that they can continue to extract in the same way they have been at a cost effecient price.

North America, South America and Europe all have larger oil reserves than the middle east, if you count them all.

Given that the Iraq war has already cost America about $550 billion wouldn't it have been better to use that money to shore up the failing banks?
Oh no, and for too many reasons: Saddam would still be there, his WMD would still be there and so on.

That aside, it is estimated that, when all is done and dusted the war will have cost America around about $3 trillion according to the Times Online.
T/online

Interesting to read one of the comments on that article:
" ...for $2tn you could install enough wind capacity to produce 4500 TWH per annum i.e. around current US consumption. This would leave you $1tn to spend on other stuff, a global immunisation and safe water programme would be a good start although if I was a US taxpayer I would probably appreciate some tax cuts too."

Wouldn't it have been nice to think that America could have been oil (pollution) free.

As we agreed in previous topics, any action taken by a government must be to the benefit of its own people first. If there are secondary benefits to other countries, all well and good.

In going to war in Iraq the aim was to secure their oil reserves and bring stability to the region. If America hadn't needed to secure the oil reserves they also wouldn't have needed to stabilise the region because with their non-dependence on oil, oil prices would have dropped like a stone leaving OPEC all the poorer and with much less power.

Interesting.

Get Curious!

Asa, it's simply naive to talk in terms of utopian plans that require all people to be of some utopian quality morality by default.

Look at how the failing banks got into the mess in the first instance. The dream of a utopian socialist system of giving out loans devoid of the normal reciprical expectations. Lowering the bar instead of helping people meet the bar as is generally the democratic way. It was a fundamentally flawed mentality. Sure you could say that free market system is about your own vested interests primarily... but with awareness that democracy is nothing if not a force for equality and opportunity for all. It's proved itself a workable system in the big picture. A healthy balanced way of addressing the need for expressions of 'ego' and the necessity to empathize as part of a 'group'.

To think that converting the US to windmills and peddle cars would be a raspberry to the Husseins and bin ladens is simply not to understand the ideology of extremism and warmongering that is prevalent in the undercurrent of some of these regions. How do you really fight that? By arming individuals with a sense of personal power and equality.

Iraq is in travail giving birth to democracy. I still consider it'll prove money well spent in the long run.

"Through your eyes, I saw within and found who I've become"

"As we agreed in previous topics, any action taken by a government must be to the benefit of its own people first."

plus

A need to save the banking system from collapse

Method:

Cut all aid to foreign countries.

"Think only of yourself."

What d'you think, Asa?

And all this talk about green sources of power is nonsense, as I'm sure you know; all the monstrocities disguised as windmills won't ever be enough to make much of a difference to the needs of the UK or The US. Your quote was preceded by, Probably relatively little oil as Wind/Solar produces electricity rather than a direct substitute for oil. However, assuming you could achieve an average utilisation of 30% (a bit of a big if)... .
Not that the poster is an expert; he simply posted a comment, as did Andy, from France: "it's only money!"

Good lad, that Andy!

"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

C'mon, don't tell me that you're that naive.
To think that any country would help another if it a) weren't in it's own best interests or b) it would impact adversely on itself is hilarious.

Have a nice time in France - if it doesn't go against your conscience. Contributing to a regime that is so anti U.S. involvement in Iraq should go against the grain, unless you don't intend on spending any money.

Get Curious!

Heard the one about the backing, by France, of the invasion of Iraq? Chirac Contre Bush: L'Autre Guerre. You're naive, Asa, not I. Perhaps your knowledge of French politics is so lacking as to fail to understand the bigger picture. Heard the one about the strong French government? Neither have I.

"To think that any country would help another if it a) weren't in it's own best interests or b) it would impact adversely on itself is hilarious."

See, you're mistaking the US, the UK and a good number of other countries, with less selfish intentions, for the French.
But France is blessed in other ways, and that's the France I'm off to see, Asa, darlin'.
What all this proves is that it's me that can see both the good and the bad, whereas you see what you want to see.

"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

quote:

---

See, you're mistaking the US, the UK and a good number of other countries, with less selfish intentions, for the French.
But France is blessed in other ways, and that's the France I'm off to see, Asa, darlin'.
What all this proves is that it's me that can see both the good and the bad, whereas you see what you want to see.

---

Well said afenton, but you do realize that you see it as you want to as well, but you see both the good and bad. Asa only sees the evil!

Suppose you invited your greatest enemy out for a coffee and you both discussed your good battles and your bad battles among each others countries. I can assure you that his bad is your good and his good is your bad, but that's because that's the way you both see it.

Asa may only see one way, but it's how he sees it. Were all guilty of it!


"If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue with me, correct me - but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way." -Roger Ebert

"Asa only sees the evil!"
Perhaps you could tell me how you came to such a conclusion.

Since Andrew is away for a bit, I'll leave his peculiar comments to another day.

Edit: This is my 2001st post.
Ooooh! Should have been profound.

Get Curious!

I think the intrinsic flaw; the unfortunate fault line in contempory left ideology, is the taking for granted of the freedoms and privileges that were never the default in human nature. They were fought for and won. It (the left) draws an overabundance of confidence from the sound of its own voice... forgetting that freedom to speak is not the privilege for billions of people on the planet. One day that might happen, but until then it is imperative to appreciate our voice is only audible by virtue of precious freedoms.

The left thinks it can speak for others in their forced silence, whereas so far the right maintains the humility to understand that the goal is to give others a voice to speak for themselves and go from there.

"Through your eyes, I saw within and found who I've become"

quote:

---

I think the intrinsic flaw; the unfortunate fault line in contempory left ideology, is the taking for granted of the freedoms and privileges that were never the default in human nature. They were fought for and won. It (the left) draws an overabundance of confidence from the sound of its own voice... forgetting that freedom to speak is not the privilege for billions of people on the planet. One day that might happen, but until then it is imperative to appreciate our voice is only audible by virtue of precious freedoms.

The left thinks it can speak for others in their forced silence, whereas so far the right maintains the humility to understand that the goal is to give others a voice to speak for themselves and go from there.

---

It's a Where's Wally of vacuous concepts. Freedom and human nature is a dime a dozen in academia.

"To run away from danger, instead of facing it, is to deny one's faith in man and God, even one's own self. It were better for one to drown oneself than live to declare such bankruptcy of faith." - Mahatma Gandhi, 1946

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beacon-of-Hope:

quote:

---

I think the intrinsic flaw; the unfortunate fault line in contempory left ideology, is the taking for granted of the freedoms and privileges that were never the default in human nature. They were fought for and won. It (the left) draws an overabundance of confidence from the sound of its own voice... forgetting that freedom to speak is not the privilege for billions of people on the planet. One day that might happen, but until then it is imperative to appreciate our voice is only audible by virtue of precious freedoms.

The left thinks it can speak for others in their forced silence, whereas so far the right maintains the humility to understand that the goal is to give others a voice to speak for themselves and go from there.

---

It's a Where's Wally of vacuous concepts. Freedom and human nature is a dime a dozen in academia.

---

Well, Mr "Make an argument... this is the debate forum", expound upon your dismissal of my assertion. Or are you implying that 'academia' is God and needs no further discussion?

"Through your eyes, I saw within and found who I've become"

'Freedom' and 'human nature' are little more than empty concepts requiring self-serving definitions.

If I ask you to define what they are, I'll merely hear a bunch of definitions that describe America's system, assuming it to be the be-all-and-end-all of human governance without question.

'Freedom', from another perspective, is an overarching economic bully pulling the strings to create pollution hell-holes like Japan, Mexico and Korea, messed up inferno's like Iraq or pockled lands of death like Afghanistan (as if it could not 'die' more).

And then there's the American economy.

Define human nature.

"To run away from danger, instead of facing it, is to deny one's faith in man and God, even one's own self. It were better for one to drown oneself than live to declare such bankruptcy of faith." - Mahatma Gandhi, 1946

Human nature is:

Rebelling against authority so much that the ultimate vision of a perfect government system is discussing laws with a dull lawyer, “who speaks broken English, with a strong accent and vodka breath,” in a legal system with so many conflicting and contradictory laws, that one has to break one to comply with another, and then patting himself on the back, because of his "humanity," as he walks home, down his blah street, to his blah house, to eat his blah food, waiting until the next day to go to his blah job.

-----------------------------
"In all of our hearts lies a longing for a Sacred Romance. It will not go away in spite of our efforts over the years to anesthetize or ignore its song, or attach it to a single person or endeavor." Brent Curtis