• YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
  • Like us on facebook here

Yvonne Ridley (1 Viewer)

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Rigghttt. Cant they just leave a paper saying "We, Al-Qaeda, are responsible"..?? And if they want to make it obvious that it was them, we did Bin Laden deny involvment?? I mean he can just come out and say "i did it", much easier then going to the trouble of leaving books in 'obvious locations'
I've already justified that bin Laden did not in general deny involvement, you seemed to have just ignored my point.

It was on the news. Its part of the official version.
But weren't you so critical about what the media portrays? But you are so quick to believe in anything mediawise which would be against the US administration.

mate whatever faction you wanna label them, extremists/fundamental are literal followers of texts, they go to extremes to follow the religion, they do become extra liberal. Drinking and clubbing and Islamic extrmeists simply dont go together.
That didn't suffice. You're arguing about how it is totally ridiculous that the Islamic extremists would do this, when they are so integral to their religion, yet we have other Muslims claiming that they are actually not legitimate followers of Islam, due to their massacre methods.

Ill leave the speculating to you.
A witty remark proves nothing - Voltaire.

Whatever reason for why you said that, it didn't prove your point, or disprove mine. Also known as irrelevance.

Does that make it invalid somehow? How about you try answering some of those questions, instead of freeing urslef by labelling anyone who questions offical 'facts' a conspriacy theorist. Forget who wrote it, its in english, read it and try and prove it wrong.
If you're going to use the 'prove it or shutup' paradigm, you'd be on the long haul streak, as many parts of this political matter, you cant prove either, or disprove. A loop argument.

ohhhh, I see, so they can fabricate, but the US admin cant? thats pretty impartial of you.
When did I ever generalize that the US administration can't fabricate? I've already clearly expressed my opinion on Bush's WMD fabrications. Please, stick on point.

Is it also a fundamental politcal rule to arm ppl up to thier teeth with all soughts of chemical and biological weapons and support them to achieve your ends but when they lose favour with you, you label them 'tyrants' and want them ousted??
No. Relevance to quote: nilch.

Its a sovereign country. Foreign troops have no right to be there.
Who are you to formulate what's right or wrong for a nation? The last time I checked, you weren't a policy maker in the Saudi government. Whether or not foreign troops have the right to be there or not is regulated by the appropriate laws and policies of that nation, not by you.

So you put in place sanctions that achieve no ends other then kill off civilians?? And it nice of you to blame the UN for everything, either their 'impotent' coz they wont agree with the US or then when they agree and something coz wrong, its thier fault.
When was I blaming the UN for everything? I agree with many UN legislatives. Just not for Iraq. Secondly, I was emphasizing that the embargoes were approved by a council of many nations, not just the US. So in this situation, it's unfair to blame the US in any hint or form for the sanctions. Thirdly, like I've reiterated before, what else is the UN to do? The economic sanctions are a way to deter the head of states of those nations to correct their policies, which were against international opinion. These economic sanctions in general work, because most humane leaders would co-operate to lift the sanctions. But obviously Hussein and his despotic regime would not. This is about causality. The sanctions were caused by Hussein, hence it is entirely his fault. Hussein invades Iran. UN imposes sanctions. You complain about the sanctions and it's implecations. But whose fault was it? Husseins, obviously.

Thats irrelevant, no one denys that.
Why is it irrelevant? You were arguing on how barbaric the sanctions were, yet you don't complain about the overall barbaric implecations of his actual regime. Quite relevant, actually.

And I had a feeling that youd be a Islam hater. And no I dont think such actions ppl who have been subjected and forced to live in ghettos (after being expelled by an illegal military occupation) their whole lives with no future in anything ahead are worse then the organised state ssponsoered terrorsim that Israel carries out on civilians. Though the target of the suicide bombers is quite simply, wrong.
I'm an Islam hater? Thanks for not justifying your remark. Making up personal attacks isn't going to help your argument.

Illegal military occupation? Reminds me just like the Iran-Iraq war. I wonder who started that again.. hmm.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is a complex issue. For reasons relating to relevance, I don't think it would be a good idea to introduce a full scale Israel Vs Palestine argument in this Hussein vs. Bush argument. If you want to argue about this instead, then I'll do it with you some other time in the News/Politics forum.

Why doenst your 'freedom loving' US do anything about Israel's blatant refusal to comply with UN resolutions. In the 10 yr period in which the Iraq didnt comply with 16 UN resolutions, Israel did tehe same to 72!...no bias there, huh? Oh no wait, the UN's at fault here.
It's funny how you just make totally unrelated, unjustified assumptions on my stance. Again, I reiterate, when did I generalize that I thought the UN was at fault for everything?
Of course the US wouldn't care less about the resolutions on Israel, they are in their interests. No, no bias. I'm not biased. If it's true, I admit it. In your case, that appears quite the contrary.

whatever mate, agreeing to obvious things like Bush's lying aout the WMD doesnt mean your not biased. Bias becomes apparent when grey ares arise, in which you tend towards the US in every case.
So how are you going to prove that I'm biased then? I'm obviously less biased than yourself. I admit the political facts concerning the US, if they are against the US, such as Bush's lies, Bush's bias for Israel etc. You have so far gone in every possible way to degrade the US credibility, even as to introduce conspiracy theories. If you're going to call myself biased, then please have some courtesy and admit yourself to be so too.

Bias becomes apparent when grey ares arise, in which you tend towards the US in every case.
Erm, hello? You even explicitly talked about how I admitted Bush's lying in the same quote, yet you then contradict yourself by saying that I go 'with the US in every case'? Job well done.
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
What if I was to somehow translate these arguments into mathematical representations? Would that still be boring for you Keypad?
 

Ozz^E

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
256
Location
Sydney
Originally posted by JKDDragonI've already justified that bin Laden did not in general deny involvement, you seemed to have just ignored my point.
Not denying and accepting responsibility are two different things. you were trying to imply that Al-Qeada left the Arabic texts and flying manuals etc so everyone would know it was them. My question is: why go to such trouble when you can come out as simply say 'We did it". I think your the one ignoring my questions.

But weren't you so critical about what the media portrays? But you are so quick to believe in anything mediawise which would be against the US administration.
I did note that it was part of the official version, one I dont agree with. I only use it coz you agree with it, i.e to show how its wrong.


That didn't suffice. You're arguing about how it is totally ridiculous that the Islamic extremists would do this, when they are so integral to their religion, yet we have other Muslims claiming that they are actually not legitimate followers of Islam, due to their massacre methods.
I know ppl claim them not to be legitimate followers of Islam. (If we assume that Bin Laden and his gang did somehting like 9/11), then Id say the same. But the whole illegitimacy comes from going to extremes, not from abadoning laws. So for example with alcohol, extremist might say you cant apeak with someone who drinks it, or that if one drinks it he automatically beomces an non-beliveir, they would never start drinking the stuff themsleves.

If you're going to use the 'prove it or shutup' paradigm, you'd be on the long haul streak, as many parts of this political matter, you cant prove either, or disprove. A loop argument.
I never mentioned shuttin up. But for you to simply 'invalidate' rational questions coz the person their coming from might be french is untenable. So my point was, refute the claims, rather labelling the author and then ignoring them.


When did I ever generalize that the US administration can't fabricate? I've already clearly expressed my opinion on Bush's WMD fabrications. Please, stick on point.
Were you not implying that any claim that the US fabrictae those 'tapes' to suit thier ends is unbelievable??

I was emphasizing that the embargoes were approved by a council of many nations, not just the US. So in this situation, it's unfair to blame the US in any hint or form for the sanctions. Thirdly, like I've reiterated before, what else is the UN to do? The economic sanctions are a way to deter the head of states of those nations to correct their policies, which were against international opinion. These economic sanctions in general work, because most humane leaders would co-operate to lift the sanctions. But obviously Hussein and his despotic regime would not.
If its so obvious why would you still go ahead with the sanctions, knowing the the civilain population would be affected adversely?? Or didnt the US know Hussien barbarity since the supproted him for a decade to get him ot where he was??



Why is it irrelevant? You were arguing on how barbaric the sanctions were, yet you don't complain about the overall barbaric implecations of his actual regime. Quite relevant, actually.
Its irrelevant coz there's no dispute. His regime was barbarbic, period. But thats doesnt give you reason, in international law, nor any other, to invade and remove him. And if it does, why doesnt the US apply this across the board. The Uzbek president runsa 'barbaric' regime (one we hardly find out about since its victims are muslims), go remove him. Israel runs a 'barbaric' regime, just coz their in the US's interest does that mean its okay for them to do what they want?



I'm an Islam hater? Thanks for not justifying your remark. Making up personal attacks isn't going to help your argument.
I that hyprocisy I detect. You calling me an Israel hater isnt a personal attack??

Illegal military occupation? Reminds me just like the Iran-Iraq war. I wonder who started that again.. hmm.
Saddam did (backed by the West) and it was illegal. Whats your point?

The Israel-Palestine conflict is a complex issue. For reasons relating to relevance, I don't think it would be a good idea to introduce a full scale Israel Vs Palestine argument in this Hussein vs. Bush argument. If you want to argue about this instead, then I'll do it with you some other time in the News/Politics forum.
Its been done beofre. And we dont seem to be getting anywhere in this discussion, I think that one will be much the same.


Erm, hello? You even explicitly talked about how I admitted Bush's lying in the same quote, yet you then contradict yourself by saying that I go 'with the US in every case'? Job well done.
'Grey'! areas. His lies are no where near 'grey'. There balck and white. Mate, according to your 'theories' on bias, if I say that the suicide bombers in Palestine killing civilians is wrong (which i do), then I not biased against Israel. Why then do you label my an Israel-hater?
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Not denying and accepting responsibility are two different things. you were trying to imply that Al-Qeada left the Arabic texts and flying manuals etc so everyone would know it was them. My question is: why go to such trouble when you can come out as simply say 'We did it". I think your the one ignoring my questions.
Implecatively, and in general, they are the same for most situations because for the circumstances of that subset, not denying the subject will have a negative affect on their credibility. If it was not bin Laden and he didn't wan't to be known as the culprit, he would of denied it. But he didn't deny it, and according to you, he didn't accept responsibility. But then, why would he not just deny it in a resolutive eloquent way? It seems obvious that he wan't it known in some expressive magnitude, that he was affliated with the planning in some critical fashion.

But this is effectively irrelevant, as my quote was referring to your overlooking of the fact that I had already argued on that bin Laden had effectively implied he was directly involved, since you were quoted as saying that he did deny involvement, after my quote on his non-denials.

Ignoring your questions? I've justified far more questions than you. Secondly, note how I said 'ignoring my points', not questions.

So why did they go to all the trouble? I have no idea. But it's fact that they have directly stated that many post 911 attacks on US interests and their subsequent relations were of their planning, and have never afterwards denied their involvement with the 911 attacks. Their ill-priority on denying the involvements with the attacks is the primary point. If they didn't do it, they would fight it out with passion to make it known to the world that they didn't do it. But they seem to just cruise along, with minimal effort in this department. If John accused Fred of eating his lolly, but John didn't do it, he would fight it with a passion, because he sincerely didn't do it. But if he did, then in general his fighting spirit would be more negated, as he did do it. bin Laden has continually not denied his involvement, and according to many sources like I've justified before in general, he has admitted direct planning and involvement.

I did note that it was part of the official version, one I dont agree with. I only use it coz you agree with it, i.e to show how its wrong.
When did I agree to that aspect? I explicitly showed skepticism of that particular aspect.

I know ppl claim them not to be legitimate followers of Islam. (If we assume that Bin Laden and his gang did somehting like 9/11), then Id say the same. But the whole illegitimacy comes from going to extremes, not from abadoning laws. So for example with alcohol, extremist might say you cant apeak with someone who drinks it, or that if one drinks it he automatically beomces an non-beliveir, they would never start drinking the stuff themsleves.
The simple fact remains that they were labelled as non-Muslims by other Muslims. Non-muslims are effectively illegitimate culprits, and it's not unreasonable for them to negate certain rules such as drinking, assuming the drinking story was true. If I wanted to use Islam as a scapegoat, I could. I could go blow up a train full of people and then claim that I was a Muslim, and it was my destiny to hold a jihad, when I infact wasn't a Muslim at all.

I never mentioned shuttin up. But for you to simply 'invalidate' rational questions coz the person their coming from might be french is untenable. So my point was, refute the claims, rather labelling the author and then ignoring them.
I never specified that you mentioned shut up either. It was the labelling of a paradigm of argumentative strategy.
I was more emphasizing prove-it or lose-it kind of tactic, where I was asked to disprove the legitimacy of the pictures. Similarly I could present to you many incidents such as your speculation of the 'missile' attack on the Pentagon. Point is, you can't prove it, or disprove it so this strategy is useless in this argument.

Were you not implying that any claim that the US fabrictae those 'tapes' to suit thier ends is unbelievable??
How does that prove the generalization?

Its irrelevant coz there's no dispute. His regime was barbarbic, period. But thats doesnt give you reason, in international law, nor any other, to invade and remove him. And if it does, why doesnt the US apply this across the board. The Uzbek president runsa 'barbaric' regime (one we hardly find out about since its victims are muslims), go remove him. Israel runs a 'barbaric' regime, just coz their in the US's interest does that mean its okay for them to do what they want?
Why doesn't it give you a reason? Again, you seem to act like as if you are the almighty regulator of ethics and policies. You are entitied to your subjective moral opinion. But you don't have the right to claim what country has what rights to do what, because that is determined by them, not you. International policy, that is, determines what's right or wrong on an international level. Assuming it was against international law for being barbaric in his regime, then the law's implecations will be brought upon him. You can't just say, 'you can't do this, even when it's law', because you are not a policy maker, sorry. Again, don't bother bringing Israel into this. I speculate that similarly, you will tend to argue so that Israel gets absolutely no credit at all, while Palestine is always right? They both commit ethically wrong things. So if you talk negatively upon either factions, I can in general refer to a negative implecation of that upon the opposite either, hence the argument goes into loop.

I that hyprocisy I detect. You calling me an Israel hater isnt a personal attack??
I had a better reason than you. I in no way made any negative generalizations upon the entire realm of Islam, and you generalized that I hated Islam. I only generalized upon the subject in which I made no additional external suggestions. For example, if you continually lash upon Israel, then I'm not going to generalize you as a Jew hater, or something trivial like that. I would only ever bar you at the boundary at which your subject extends, that is, Israel as a nation and it's regime.

Saddam did (backed by the West) and it was illegal. Whats your point?
My point is that you are emphasizing the US villian for illegal invasions, yet you do not ever bring upon the illegal invasions of Iraq upon other nations.

'Grey'! areas. His lies are no where near 'grey'. There balck and white. Mate, according to your 'theories' on bias, if I say that the suicide bombers in Palestine killing civilians is wrong (which i do), then I not biased against Israel. Why then do you label my an Israel-hater?
I have no idea why you mentioned the 'black and white' as opposed to the 'grey' sugar coated lies, for I never refuted against that. Another example of extreme irrelevance.

You were labelled as a Israel hater because the Israel issue is highly related to the US one in this respect, because Israel is like a muppet in the Middle East. You have massive objections to the US in every possible way, for I've not seen you once admit something credible for the US, and you've gone as far as conspiracy to degrade them. Similarly this attitude and evidence bias is expectedly transitioned to Israel. Combine this with other factors such as your unrelenting slamming on Israel, and your 'Israel is always wrong' kind of implied attitude, and the fact that you yourself is a Muslim, leads me to reasonably conclude that there is a high enough chance that you are a Israel loather, for me to proclaim so.
 

Ozz^E

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
256
Location
Sydney
Originally posted by JKDDragon If John accused Fred of eating his lolly, but John didn't do it, he would fight it with a passion, because he sincerely didn't do it. But if he did, then in general his fighting spirit would be more negated, as he did do it.
Your missing the point. If Fred had in fact eaten the lolly, he wouldnt on one hand intentionally leaves his traces on the scene and on the other deny (or, since you think there's not much diff, not accept) responsibility. Why? Beacuse leaving his 'marks' implyies he wanted everyone to know it was him and 'passive acceptance' is not the path he would take. Note that here im specifically pointing to a 'hole' in the offical version, not speaking generally about what a guilty person would do if this or if that...


When did I agree to that aspect? I explicitly showed skepticism of that particular aspect.
I dont recall u decomposing the offical version and accepting/rejecting/being skeptical aboutits component parts. In general, you agree with it.

The simple fact remains that they were labelled as non-Muslims by other Muslims. Non-muslims are effectively illegitimate culprits, and it's not unreasonable for them to negate certain rules such as drinking, assuming the drinking story was true. If I wanted to use Islam as a scapegoat, I could. I could go blow up a train full of people and then claim that I was a Muslim, and it was my destiny to hold a jihad, when I infact wasn't a Muslim at all.
U serious? You cant have the best of both worlds, mate. Either their 'hardline muslims' or not muslims at all. The two are mutually exclusive. Im petty sure you agreed with the former hitherto. And if you now want to bring up the notion that maybe they were fake muslims, using Islam as a scapegoat, then perhaps youd like to also state what their objectives would be? Since theyd be different in the two different scenarios.

Why doesn't it give you a reason? Again, you seem to act like as if you are the almighty regulator of ethics and policies. You are entitied to your subjective moral opinion. But you don't have the right to claim what country has what rights to do what, because that is determined by them, not you. International policy, that is, determines what's right or wrong on an international level.
Lol..for the record.."I am not an international poilcy maker for all and sundry, nor do I think such".

More to the point, I said that there was no reason in int law coz in fact there isnt. If there is, plz show me.

Had there in fact been such areason, then President Bush wouldnt have had you fabrictae WMD lies, would he?? He would have said, he's the law, were invading. And there would have been no drama. Anyhow, If indeed there is anny such law, bring it forth.

Assuming it was against international law for being barbaric in his regime, then the law's implecations will be brought upon him. You can't just say, 'you can't do this, even when it's law'
But I can say, 'you cant do this, it against the law'.

I speculate that similarly, you will tend to argue so that Israel gets absolutely no credit at all, while Palestine is always right?
Your not a good speculator then. Re read my above posts in which I made pretty clear that the sucide bombers killing of civilians is wrong.
I had a better reason than you. I in no way made any negative generalizations upon the entire realm of Islam, and you generalized that I hated Islam. I only generalized upon the subject in which I made no additional external suggestions. For example, if you continually lash upon Israel, then I'm not going to generalize you as a Jew hater, or something trivial like that. I would only ever bar you at the boundary at which your subject extends, that is, Israel as a nation and it's regime.
"Is not what Israel does in Palestine terrorism?". This is the only thing I said before you labelled me an 'Israel Hater'. Hardly 'continually lashing out'..

You were labelled as a Israel hater because the Israel issue is highly related to the US one in this respect, because Israel is like a muppet in the Middle East. You have massive objections to the US in every possible way, for I've not seen you once admit something credible for the US
Thats because were talking about the Iraq War. I can start listing good things the US has done, but of what relevance would that be. As far as the War on Iraq is concerned, their intentions were solely driven for personal gain, thus they didnt do anything credible. Sure they removed a tyrant, but theres no credibility in that on their part. If I kill my neighbour coz someone paid my too (they had something against him), i.e I kill him for personal benefit, but it turns out that he was a violent and abusive father and husband so his family is in a way 'liberated', where's the credibility on my part? Even if the family might be better off?
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Your missing the point. If Fred had in fact eaten the lolly, he wouldnt on one hand intentionally leaves his traces on the scene and on the other deny (or, since you think there's not much diff, not accept) responsibility. Why? Beacuse leaving his 'marks' implyies he wanted everyone to know it was him and 'passive acceptance' is not the path he would take. Note that here im specifically pointing to a 'hole' in the offical version, not speaking generally about what a guilty person would do if this or if that...
Assuming that bin Laden did deny it, which was the actual original argument. My argument based on the contrary, hence 'your point' for this instance is negated.

I dont recall u decomposing the offical version and accepting/rejecting/being skeptical aboutits component parts. In general, you agree with it.
Read my quote again. 'When did I agree to that aspect? I explicitly showed skepticism of that particular aspect.'

A particular aspect does not refer to a generalization.

U serious? You cant have the best of both worlds, mate. Either their 'hardline muslims' or not muslims at all. The two are mutually exclusive. Im petty sure you agreed with the former hitherto. And if you now want to bring up the notion that maybe they were fake muslims, using Islam as a scapegoat, then perhaps youd like to also state what their objectives would be? Since theyd be different in the two different scenarios.
Exactly. If they weren't Muslims at all, then what would their purpose be? I have no clue. The relevant point is, they have been dogged by other Muslims as being non-Muslims for Muslims of any degree don't commit such massacres 'as specified by them'. Hence their objectives are unknown and unfounded by me.

Your not a good speculator then. Re read my above posts in which I made pretty clear that the sucide bombers killing of civilians is wrong.
You made one vague indirect link to Palestine's ill fated suicide mission decisions. That hardly constitutes my speculative skills as poor considering your under-par comprehension of some of my arguments.

Lol..for the record.."I am not an international poilcy maker for all and sundry, nor do I think such".

More to the point, I said that there was no reason in int law coz in fact there isnt. If there is, plz show me.

Had there in fact been such areason, then President Bush wouldnt have had you fabrictae WMD lies, would he?? He would have said, he's the law, were invading. And there would have been no drama. Anyhow, If indeed there is anny such law, bring it forth.
If there is no law, then how excellent for Bush. Introduce the aspect of ambiguity and then the US will get an even better headstart.

But I can say, 'you cant do this, it against the law'.
Probably. But Iraq has also broken international laws in the past, and they have paid for it by sanctions. Similarly, Bush will pay for his actions in the form of more discreet economic sanctions imposed by target nations within the European Union such as France and Germany, wavering support for his administration, possible election loss, bias from public for other issues etc. etc.

"Is not what Israel does in Palestine terrorism?". This is the only thing I said before you labelled me an 'Israel Hater'. Hardly 'continually lashing out'..
Poor memory perhaps?
Besides that powerful statement, you also conversed about how Israel beckons with Palestine with it's 'state organized terrorism'. Another critical revelation, where the emphasis is always on how what Israel is doing now is terrorism, while never really emphasizing how the Palestinians are also carrying out such terrorism. Occupation is traditionally and by convention, distinctive to the rudimentary definition of terrorism. You sound just like other hardline Muslims where they claim the US invasion and the Israeli occupation as 'terrorism' etc. You and them are using this word out of context. If the US went into Iraq and massacred the civilian population, burned down their homes, installed a despotic regime and reaped all their oil, that would be terrorism. What the US is doing now is going to someone's house, expelling a violent housemate, claiming ownership to the place and then trying to spread it's reasonable ideologies there. That is different to going there, killing everyone inside, reaping down everything for value, and then torching the place. I hate it when people justify issues with ill-contexted uses of 'terrorism'.

Thats because were talking about the Iraq War. I can start listing good things the US has done, but of what relevance would that be. As far as the War on Iraq is concerned, their intentions were solely driven for personal gain, thus they didnt do anything credible. Sure they removed a tyrant, but theres no credibility in that on their part. If I kill my neighbour coz someone paid my too (they had something against him), i.e I kill him for personal benefit, but it turns out that he was a violent and abusive father and husband so his family is in a way 'liberated', where's the credibility on my part? Even if the family might be better off?
Personal gain? Bush didn't invade Iraq because he felt that he had a few tens of billions of dollars in his pocket to burn.

Iraq is a threat to it's neighbouring countries, as evident by the onslaught of Iran.
Hussein is openly non-reluctant to using chemical weapons on other human beings, as evident by the Iran-Iraq war.
Hussein bears a ghastly regime.
Democracy deserves to be spread around the world (subjective opinion here really).
Hussein always beared a small chance that they could have had WMD.

Now tell me, what possible 'personal gains' would taking out Iraq be? Oh let me guess, this is about oil? Bush has already assured that the US would not directly benefit from the riches of the oil, and it would be used for the reconstruction of the country. Obviously, before he went to war, this would be the issue that people would plague and critisize him for, so he wouldn't go to war with such a notion to still invade for the commodity.
Even if he did steal some oil (that's right, I'll make some conspiracies AGAINST Bush just to make you happy), it would not in any marginable fraction equivalate to the vast amount of financial and bureaucratic resources the war has taken up, not to mention his now shaky election prospects.

Bush had no reason to risk such a heft to invade an entire nation for 'personal gains'.

Now tell me, with the established facts above stapled, if Bush didn't have anything credible to do in Iraq, then why the hell would he waste his time, resources and his administration's money? I certainly have no clue. Reminicient of someone burning their wallet, when they have $1,000 inside, you don't just do that, unless you're stupid.
 

freaking_out

Saddam's new life
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
6,786
Location
In an underground bunker
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Originally posted by JKDDragon
...Now tell me, what possible 'personal gains' would taking out Iraq be? Oh let me guess, this is about oil? Bush has already assured that the US would not directly benefit from the riches of the oil, and it would be used for the reconstruction of the country. Obviously, before he went to war, this would be the issue that people would plague and critisize him for, so he wouldn't go to war with such a notion to still invade for the commodity...
on this point, i wanted to ask- why did it need "reconstruction" in the first place? - was it not the sanctions and constant bombings by UN/USA?? and don't come and tell me that sanctions were imposed to punish saddam- thats bull, coz the only ppl. who suffered were the innocent civilians, NOT saddam!!

so if u were gonna use iraqi oil for "reconstruction" then thats just a waste of their wealth (due to the "deconstruction" of UN/US).

Originally posted by JKDDragon
...Even if he did steal some oil (that's right, I'll make some conspiracies AGAINST Bush just to make you happy), it would not in any marginable fraction equivalate to the vast amount of financial and bureaucratic resources the war has taken up, not to mention his now shaky election prospects.

Bush had no reason to risk such a heft to invade an entire nation for 'personal gains'....
...and i also disagree wif this- coz if u think abt. it america is gonna gain a lot from this, not only will they have access to cheap (if not free) oil (instead of relying on problematic saudi arabia), but also who are the reconstruction projects going to- the american companies of course...so all this can easily payback the costs of the war.

also note how how good of a strategic position that iraq is- i.e not only is it securing the resources around the world (before china does) but it also neutralises the threat for israel.
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
on this point, i wanted to ask- why did it need "reconstruction" in the first place? - was it not the sanctions and constant bombings by UN/USA?? and don't come and tell me that sanctions were imposed to punish saddam- thats bull, coz the only ppl. who suffered were the innocent civilians, NOT saddam!!

so if u were gonna use iraqi oil for "reconstruction" then thats just a waste of their wealth (due to the "deconstruction" of UN/US).
So what are you implying? That the bombings authorized by NATO/UN were targetted specifically at civilians? That's nonsense. What political purpose would that do?

Sanctions which target infrastructure and production subsequently slows economic growth (or heightens recession, if the economy was already in the red), and is just another form of punishment to convey to the regime what international opinion thinks of it's current circumstances and actions. Of course, of such actions, civilian suffering do occur.

The reconstruction is used to rebuild Iraq, from damages incurred from such sanctions correct, and infrastructural, political, economic and civilian facilital damage inflicted by the invasion.

...and i also disagree wif this- coz if u think abt. it america is gonna gain a lot from this, not only will they have access to cheap (if not free) oil (instead of relying on problematic saudi arabia), but also who are the reconstruction projects going to- the american companies of course...so all this can easily payback the costs of the war.

also note how how good of a strategic position that iraq is- i.e not only is it securing the resources around the world (before china does) but it also neutralises the threat for israel.
Oil will be cheaper for the relative long-term, but no where near 'free'. Easily pay back the cost of this war? Do you have any idea how much it will cost total net for this? A prospect actually, but the cost vs. revenue will not even for many many years.

Iraq won't neutralize the threat for Israel. If it would, then of course Bush had a VERY personal incentive for invading it. The wake of Iraq in terms of regional stability will not settle for many years. The invasion has only exponentially fuelled extremism, and this doesn't bode well for the US or Israel. If the US really wanted to claim or atleast par strategically in-region, as a sole reason, at present they should of not have invaded.
 

shelley

trouble maker
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
618
Location
in front of a computer most likely...
Gender
Female
HSC
2003
Originally posted by JKDDragon
So what are you implying? That the bombings authorized by NATO/UN were targetted specifically at civilians? That's nonsense. What political purpose would that do?
must say i agree..no way did tehy set out and say hrmm today im gonna go and mass murder innocent civilians..they mass dismiss them as "casulties of war" but they didnt mean to kill em i'm sure..cos that would be stupid..remember our world condems the killin of cillians..think ira in ireland and how much slack they copped for deliberatly killing inncoent civilians when they delerbratly bombed that bus of school children!

Oil will be cheaper for the relative long-term, but no where near 'free'. Easily pay back the cost of this war? Do you have any idea how much it will cost total net for this? A prospect actually, but the cost vs. revenue will not even for many many years.
haha umm dont u lot watch the news..weve just been told taht fuel and oil will regularily cost above teh dollar..so meh we got wroughted..proberbly due to the fact its gonna cost as collin said a pretty penny from teh some what economically unstable (thus kinda poor at teh moment) american government..and i seriously doubt george bush is gonna be dippin into his own pocket to meet expenses!

...and i also disagree wif this- coz if u think abt. it america is gonna gain a lot from this, not only will they have access to cheap (if not free) oil (instead of relying on problematic saudi arabia), but also who are the reconstruction projects going to- the american companies of course...so all this can easily payback the costs of the war.
the ethos of war today says if u bombed it u must rebuild it..so americas gonna pay peopel for teh reconstruction..massive outlay! and their economies in a recession. think teh rebuliding of japan by anerica after ww2
 

Ozz^E

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
256
Location
Sydney
Originally posted by JKDDragon Assuming that bin Laden did deny it, which was the actual original argument. My argument based on the contrary, hence 'your point' for this instance is negated.
You like playing with words, huh?

Lets forget bin Ladin's denial. Well assume he didnt deny it. That doesnt change my point. We also now that he hasnt come out direclty and accepted responsibility as in "I did it" or "We, Al-Qaeda, did it". My original question, which you still havent answered, was," Why would he go out of his way to leave evidence of his doing the attacks near the scene? You said that he wanted everyone to know that Al-Qeada in fact did it. Though it makes muhc more sense to any sane mind that if you wanted everyone to know you did it, coming out and accepting responsibility is a much more appropriate way.

Exactly. If they weren't Muslims at all, then what would their purpose be?
Were not going to get anywhere with if's. Its nice for arguing for the sake of argument but itd be more appropriate if you actually took a stand. I mean if you cant make up your mind even as to what the motif of the perpretrators was, how do you point the finger at Bin Laden (or for that matter anyone) and how do you deny any form of internal collusion on the part of the US admin?

If there is no law, then how excellent for Bush. Introduce the aspect of ambiguity and then the US will get an even better headstart.
Another if? Get to the point? Justify the invasion in light of international law.

Probably. But Iraq has also broken international laws in the past, and they have paid for it by sanctions. Similarly, Bush will pay for his actions in the form of more discreet economic sanctions imposed by target nations within the European Union such as France and Germany, wavering support for his administration, possible election loss, bias from public for other issues etc. etc.
And you think the two are equal? The law isnt supposed to expect independent external factors to impose penalites for its breach.

Poor memory perhaps?
Besides that powerful statement, you also conversed about how Israel beckons with Palestine with it's 'state organized terrorism'.
Please show me what and where i said anything other then 'Is not what Israel does in Palestine terrorism?' BEFORE you labelled me an 'Israel Hater'.


Occupation is traditionally and by convention, distinctive to the rudimentary definition of terrorism. You sound just like other hardline Muslims where they claim the US invasion and the Israeli occupation as 'terrorism' etc. You and them are using this word out of context. If the US went into Iraq and massacred the civilian population, burned down their homes, installed a despotic regime and reaped all their oil, that would be terrorism. What the US is doing now is going to someone's house, expelling a violent housemate, claiming ownership to the place and then trying to spread it's reasonable ideologies there.
Riggghttt...So if Bin Laden under the command of Mullah Omar (as head of state of Afghanistan) went to the US under the pretext of 'invasion' to spread 'reasonable' (according to them) ideologies and as part of this bombed the WTC, then that wouldnt be terrorism??? And since when did your definiton of terrorism become the standard?

[qoute]Iraq is a threat to it's neighbouring countries, as evident by the onslaught of Iran.[/quote]

That was 20 yrs ago (with, wat you seem to be ingoring, US/British support). If the US was fair dinkum, and they was the threat of Iraq to neighbouring countries they were worried about, they should have invaded then and some time thereafter. Not 20 yrs later.

Now tell me, what possible 'personal gains' would taking out Iraq be? Oh let me guess, this is about oil? Bush has already assured that the US would not directly benefit from the riches of the oil, and it would be used for the reconstruction of the country.
Is this the same Bush that lied about the WMD? What makes his claims so beliveable all of a sudden. I think the bias on your part is evident, even after that this guy can lie with impunity, you put forth his claims as if he's never lied in his life.

So you dont think the US is in Iraq for personal benefit. How about having a puppet regime instead of a hostile tyrant? HOw about the reserves of oil (which theyve now started securing (for the Iraqi ppl of course)). Their extremely valueable with the volatile regime in Saudi Arabia. (Though with their new oil-pipline in Afghanistan they should be doing alright, of course you probably reckon they had no personal benefit of invading afghanistan either). How about neutralisng the threat Israel faced from Saddam?

And if you want to talk economics, war isnt all economically bleak. It brings with it employment, use of resources, production, it can go good for the economy as well (read '1984' and ull know). Then what about the lucrative contracts going to US oil companies. I suppose that helps Iraq, and the US doesnt beneift at all? All the profit will go back home. Then their's the reconstrucution. Who do think's gonna od that. Yea the Iraq ppl will be invovled bit the US compais will oversee most it. Again economicall beneficial.

So dont try and put forht any notion of the US having more harm then benefit form invading Iraq. Its quite simply no part of Capitalist ideology to do things in which the benefits outwiegh the costs. Its all based on personal gain.
 

Ozz^E

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
256
Location
Sydney
Originally posted by shelley
must say i agree..no way did tehy set out and say hrmm today im gonna go and mass murder innocent civilians..they mass dismiss them as "casulties of war" but they didnt mean to kill em i'm sure..cos that would be stupid..


Correct. They ddint go to intentionally kill civilians, for of what benfeit is that (to anyone). But the point I tired to make was that knowing that the civilanis would bear the grnt of the punishment and that it would hardly affect Saddam himself or his regime, the UN/NATO shoudl not have gone thorugh with such useless sanctions. Killing 1 mill civilians is all it achieved...not what they wanted, but what eventuated.
 

freaking_out

Saddam's new life
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
6,786
Location
In an underground bunker
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Originally posted by Ozz^E
Correct. They ddint go to intentionally kill civilians, for of what benfeit is that (to anyone). But the point I tired to make was that knowing that the civilanis would bear the grnt of the punishment and that it would hardly affect Saddam himself or his regime, the UN/NATO shoudl not have gone thorugh with such useless sanctions. Killing 1 mill civilians is all it achieved...not what they wanted, but what eventuated.
yeah, thats so true...u don't need a degree in rocket science, to know how much the sanctions affected the people and how little it affected saddam!! :rolleyes:
 

KeypadSDM

B4nn3d
Joined
Apr 9, 2003
Messages
2,634
Location
Sydney, Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Originally posted by freaking_out
yeah, thats so true...u don't need a degree in rocket science
You can get one of them?

2 questions, how much? And where?

:p

Guys, seriously, all this arguing, just look at it strictly logically.

No one EVER does ANYTHING out of pure altruism.
 

freaking_out

Saddam's new life
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
6,786
Location
In an underground bunker
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Originally posted by JKDDragon
So what are you implying? That the bombings authorized by NATO/UN were targetted specifically at civilians? That's nonsense. What political purpose would that do?

Sanctions which target infrastructure and production subsequently slows economic growth (or heightens recession, if the economy was already in the red), and is just another form of punishment to convey to the regime what international opinion thinks of it's current circumstances and actions. Of course, of such actions, civilian suffering do occur.

The reconstruction is used to rebuild Iraq, from damages incurred from such sanctions correct, and infrastructural, political, economic and civilian facilital damage inflicted by the invasion.
no, i was just saying how the sanctions and bombings really affected the people and wrecked their infastructure....and hence it should b the US who should b paying for the reconstruction- not the iraqis...bcoz it wasn't their fault that everything got wrecked in the first place!!!!

so at the moment (as the way things seem to be going) the iraqi oil is basically gonna b used to provide jobs for the american companies...

Oil will be cheaper for the relative long-term, but no where near 'free'. Easily pay back the cost of this war? Do you have any idea how much it will cost total net for this? A prospect actually, but the cost vs. revenue will not even for many many years.

Iraq won't neutralize the threat for Israel. If it would, then of course Bush had a VERY personal incentive for invading it. The wake of Iraq in terms of regional stability will not settle for many years. The invasion has only exponentially fuelled extremism, and this doesn't bode well for the US or Israel. If the US really wanted to claim or atleast par strategically in-region, as a sole reason, at present they should of not have invaded.
look, the fact that they can secure reconstruction contracts, have a strategical position in the middle east, and also b in control of the oil supply is a huuuuuuuge return for the cost of the war!!! remember oil is "black gold" :D

also by having control ova iraq's oil fields it helps neutralise saudi control (due to their oil supplies) and also allows america to manipulate prices (of oil) for political objectives...i.e what i'm saying is that having control of one of the biggest oil supplies in the world is a great advantage indeed!!

and of course it does lower the threat for israel, coz saddam hussein was a threat to them no doubt...anyways, (it might b a bit off track) why don't america look for WMD's in israel, i'm sure that u will have way more chances of finding them there!

but yes, at present the US's plans are screwing up, eg. they can't seem to stabilize the place, as well as the oil supplies since the "terrorists" keep pissing them off by sabbotaging the oil pipelines, scaring away the UN, etc. etc.

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
...No one EVER does ANYTHING out of pure altruism.
nicely stated keypad!!! :p
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top