• Want some good practice on harder HSC questions?
    Our BoS trial exams will be held on:
    ● 4th October (Maths Ext2)
    ● 4th October (Maths Ext1)
    ● 5th October (Chemistry)
    Click here for details on how to register
  • Happy 20 YEARS to us!

Yvonne Ridley (1 Viewer)

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
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!
Really? Well surprisingly for me then, that helps my argument. And yes, you're correct, I haven't haven't taken a good look at the oil situation in reference to the implecations of the invasion for awhile which is unfortunate.

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.
Of course I like playing with words, it's elementary within a analytical context.

Why do we need to assume that he didn't deny it? I don't ever believed that it was concretely proven that he denied it in the first place, and my whole emphasis within the whole range of posts of this subject related to his specific direct or/and indirect acceptance of the allegations.

Your question? I've answered it in plenty of forms, do you not read my posts?

"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've already justified that bin Laden did not in general deny involvement, you seemed to have just ignored my point."

"My question is: why go to such trouble when you can come out as simply say 'We did it"."

- "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.

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."

Please, for the mother of God repeat yourself again with "My original question, for which you HAVEN'T answered yet.."

Coming out and accepting responsibility is a more reasonable way? How can you generalize that for all circumstances? Depending on their intentions, leaving hints may be more appropriate for them. Don't generalize conclusions for the methods of others.

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?
What is wrong with the usage of 'ifs'? Implied dilemmas are a common occurrence in arguments, and is effective in context. You were just talking about 'lets assume this' a few quotes back. That in essence represents an 'if'. I don't see how condoning your own actions will aid your argument.

How does being indecisive about the perpetraitors' motifs disqualify the designation of their identity? This logic is invalid, and the two separate elements implecations are independent.

Another if? Get to the point? Justify the invasion in light of international law.
My point was straight-to-the-point, and in response to your post. Hence if I was not to the point, your precursor posts were also irrelevant. And if my comprehension was incorrect, then you should reclarify your posts with better grammar, spelling and make it more eloquent.

"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."

I.e, what?

Justify it in reference to international law? It was illegal, of course.

Now justify for me, the legality of Iraq's invasion of Iran, before you proclaim the US as the nastiest ultimate wrong-doer, or something perhaps.

And you think the two are equal? The law isnt supposed to expect independent external factors to impose penalites for its breach.
.. and?

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'.
My bad.

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?
If bin Laden did that, without the bombing, then that would not be terrorism. And I don't create my own definition of terrorism, unlike yourself, the standard definition defines my usages. Not the inverse.

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.
Why not 20 years later? Iraq invaded Iran, and then Kuwait in 90. Bush Sr. was actually very close to the full invasion of Iraq, however he stopped just at the point of halting the incursion, because he very well knew the risks of the post war implecations. Bush Jr, obviously took that risk.

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.
How does my bias become evident, when I've clearly expressed elements of anti-Bush facts? I dismissed your 'personal gains' argument, with an argument of my own. That does not justify bias. If I just said, 'No, that cannot be true, Bush wouldn't do that.. (pause)' and then support it with ragtag irrelevant 'evidence', then you would be fair to conclude a bias. Use bias designation in context, thanks.

Puppet regime? How is that a personal gain for Bush? It would be a strategic element for Western nations/alliances such as Britain, Australia, US etc. Bush doesn't personally gain from this. Maybe he might get a real estate discount for a holiday house in Iraq now or something.. WOW such personal gain.
Bush obviously is aware of the anti-US sentiment within Arab countries, such as Pakistan and Iraq and as such, he should most probably never be able to exercise effective exploitations of his 'puppet regimes' because they are infact, not so puppetish because of these reasons.

Oil, I've already argued upon. Also shelley pointed out that the cost implecations of post-war should actually disadvantage such. Now as an UNbiased person, I won't be assuming this, just because it helps my argument, but I will be looking into it.

Israel faced minimal threats from Saddam, and Bush realized this obviously since he managed to lie to the world about the WMD right?

Of course the US will profit from reconstruction contracts. Contrast that with the eventual net cost of the war though.

Overall, Bush would have to be a complete idiot to invade Iraq just for some gains for the nation.

He used up huge financial, military and bureaucratic resources for the war. Financially, I haven't checked the cost of the war for awhile, so it would be unreasonable for me to pin up the cost. Militarily, thanks to Iraq, the US had to recently engage it's biggest global shift of forces for many decades. Again, this is a tire on the military, on bureaucratic resources and on the coffers.

He risks the election fate, and the election fates of his alliance counterparts.

He risks the increase of anti-US feeling around the world, which is obviously true now. Many, if not most of the population of even alliance nations are anti-war, anti-Bush.

And so on..

Now that was sufficient justification in my subjective opinion, and I can't see how you could conclude me as biased in that respect. I think perhaps you are trigger happy with the bias word.

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.
It's part of most ideologies to in general perform activities for benefit. However there is a difference when you note whether or not it was for 'personal gain'. 'Personal gain' can encompass many aspects. Assuming Bush invaded Iraq solely for the purpose of taking out the regime, and spreading democracy in the region, in which it directly doesn't benefit economically, that could still be subjectively interpreted as personal gain. You've got to be careful when you use the phrase, because fundamentally the subset 'personal gain' of 'benefit' can be subjectively manipulated so that they are equal, and then you'll have trouble.
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
So then you two, what better and more effective alternative would you suggest, in place of economic sanctions?

Again, the rudimentary usage of these types of sanctions is to blast the leadership into reform. This obviously didn't happen, due to Hussein's despotism. Point is, the general overlay of the purpose and thought of these sanctions are sound, it's just up to the leader.

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...
Yes. The Iraqis obviously don't have the means to carry out the reconstruction on a level without American assistance, so as a consequence, the Americans benefit.

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"
I've already justified the 'strategic position' element to some extent.

Control of the oil supply? In general, their control is somewhat limited. They get indirect benefits, such as the contracts etc. but their hardly stealing it in the millions of barrels for their own use for free etc. and like shelley suggested, cost could actually increase.

And I've also justified the risks Bush took for these 'personal gains'. They aren't minor, either.

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!
Look for them in Israel? Why? It's pretty obvious that Israel has nuclear capacity. But like most of the mature nuclear powers of the world, they all understand the consequences of ever using such weapons. On the other hand, Saddam loves to exercise the big red button, as evident in Iran.

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.
That's because Donald Rumsfeld is really.. a moron. The US really didn't do a good job with post-war, anyone will give you that.
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Keypad, how long after I left did you stay loitering around the Physics office? :lol:

I would of loved to stay and chat, but I was obviously in a rush unfortunately.

And I didn't use a manila folder.. I used one of those plastic folders.. *gasp* hopefully they won't fail me *gasp* *gasp*
 

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 then you two, what better and more effective alternative would you suggest, in place of economic sanctions?

Again, the rudimentary usage of these types of sanctions is to blast the leadership into reform. This obviously didn't happen, due to Hussein's despotism. Point is, the general overlay of the purpose and thought of these sanctions are sound, it's just up to the leader.
look its so obvious tat the sanctions didn't work, and that the civilians were suffering!! so why did they maintain it for- i.e they basically just killed thousands of civilians if u look at what happened overall...obviously they should've looked at some other methods...coz sanctions did nothing!

Yes. The Iraqis obviously don't have the means to carry out the reconstruction on a level without American assistance, so as a consequence, the Americans benefit.
yep, and hence they are gonna get back their costs of the war back(as well as getting cheap oil etc. etc.) .... what i was getting at was- why did they need reconstruction in the first place?? was it not for the bombings, and the ongoing sanctions by the us/un?? hence, they should b copping the bill of reconstruction, since they broke the infastructure in the first place!!!

I've already justified the 'strategic position' element to some extent.

Control of the oil supply? In general, their control is somewhat limited. They get indirect benefits, such as the contracts etc. but their hardly stealing it in the millions of barrels for their own use for free etc. and like shelley suggested, cost could actually increase.
look of course they are gonna b controlling the oil supply- i mean who is choosing the "new" government for iraq in the first place- are they gonna have elections to choose the government?? NO!


And I've also justified the risks Bush took for these 'personal gains'. They aren't minor, either.
well, as i keep saying the gains acheived by this war (once they stabilise the region and stuff) is gonna far outweigh the loses, coz think abt. it by having control of one of the worlds biggest oil fields, means that they can easily control the oil prices to meet their political objectives!!

Look for them in Israel? Why? It's pretty obvious that Israel has nuclear capacity. But like most of the mature nuclear powers of the world, they all understand the consequences of ever using such weapons. On the other hand, Saddam loves to exercise the big red button, as evident in Iran.
lets not even start with the jewish state- there's prolly not a single law/convention that it hasn't broken!!

also with iran- remember saddam was backed by the US!!

anyways why don't u look at america itself- when it dropped 2 nuclear bombs, incinerating millions of ppl? why shouldn't they get disarmed- they've caused waay more damage with their WMD's than any other country in the world!!

That's because Donald Rumsfeld is really.. a moron. The US really didn't do a good job with post-war, anyone will give you that. [/B]
and hence most iraqis prefer to live under saddam rather live under the chaotic situation that they are in today...

this can b seen when that car bomb went off last week- what was the first thing that the ppl. did...they started throwing rocks on the americans ofcourse!
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
look its so obvious tat the sanctions didn't work, and that the civilians were suffering!! so why did they maintain it for- i.e they basically just killed thousands of civilians if u look at what happened overall...obviously they should've looked at some other methods...coz sanctions did nothing!
Again, that only contributed argumentative repetition. Hence, I reiterate, what better method would you suggest? In terms of Iraq, the sanctions' implecations were rough. However, in general the basis behind the economic sanction's reasoning is relatively sound, like I said before.

yep, and hence they are gonna get back their costs of the war back(as well as getting cheap oil etc. etc.) .... what i was getting at was- why did they need reconstruction in the first place?? was it not for the bombings, and the ongoing sanctions by the us/un?? hence, they should b copping the bill of reconstruction, since they broke the infastructure in the first place!!!
That doesn't justify that they will get the cost of the war back, until you look at fiscal budgets and profits in future years. Cheap oil? Like I've said before, oil prices could actually increase in the contrary, so it's also economically early to speculate definitely so conclusively.

Whether or not the Americans inflicted damage on the Iraqi nation in general so that it requires reconstruction is irrelevant. The point is, it needs reconstruction. Hence, it's getting it, in the form of American strategized contracts.

look of course they are gonna b controlling the oil supply- i mean who is choosing the "new" government for iraq in the first place- are they gonna have elections to choose the government?? NO!
Control is slowly being transferred to Iraqi presence. The US cannot afford to keep up a direct-American administration in Iraq, it's not feasible. Elections? Why is that so relevant? The eventuality of an Iraqi leadership will not be American, hence America cannot just expect to so easily reap off the oil.

well, as i keep saying the gains acheived by this war (once they stabilise the region and stuff) is gonna far outweigh the loses, coz think abt. it by having control of one of the worlds biggest oil fields, means that they can easily control the oil prices to meet their political objectives!!
You cannot just expect a capitalist nation such as the US to just so easily 'control the oil prices to meet their political objectives'. That is a naive conclusion, and if that was so basic, even I could be president. Unlike communist regimes, the somewhat exorbitantly government independent economy of the US cannot just be so freely 'controlled to meet their political objectives'.

Also, even if it was that elementarily breezy, that still doesn't avert the implecations of my arguments on the US's disadvantages of going to war, hence you still haven't justified why the benefits will 'far outweigh the losses'.

Also, what actual proof do you have that they will have a robust control of the oil fields? I've argued plenty of times on that the US's inability to exercise such power. Until they plan on ruling Iraq forever under a directly-American administration, chances are they aren't just going to be freely hijacking the oil like criminals to an unguarded Armagard.

lets not even start with the jewish state- there's prolly not a single law/convention that it hasn't broken!!
Irrelevant to nuclear context.

also with iran- remember saddam was backed by the US!!
Irrelevant to quote; i.e Hussein's open-ness to exercising his WMD capabilities in the field of battle.

anyways why don't u look at america itself- when it dropped 2 nuclear bombs, incinerating millions of ppl? why shouldn't they get disarmed- they've caused waay more damage with their WMD's than any other country in the world!!
Now you're being completely trivial. A sign of argumentative desperation perhaps? Do not dwell on incidents 60 years ago. Political climates and circumstances change, and as such this argument is irrelevant.
The world was at war in WWII. As a measure of final resolution, the Americans bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to effectively end the war. In the context of ethical implecations, the outcomes are very subjective, but this bears no relevance to the current political climate concerning Iraq and the United States.

and hence most iraqis prefer to live under saddam rather live under the chaotic situation that they are in today...

this can b seen when that car bomb went off last week- what was the first thing that the ppl. did...they started throwing rocks on the americans ofcourse!
That's because in general, they, like most Homo Sapians, exhibit the relative inability to change. Once the Iraqi administration is effectively stabilized, the economy bumped and the implecations of democracy fully realized, there is no reason how the Iraqi society will be worse off than before, in general.

Hypothetically, if the Iraqi's were ruled by Americans, where they were so called 'happy', and then some despot called Hussein invaded their country, under your implied POV, the population would just suddenly turn happy then? Of course not.
 
Last edited:

shelley

trouble maker
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
618
Location
in front of a computer most likely...
Gender
Female
HSC
2003
ppl your just sayin teh same stuff over and over again..i pose u this question "what good is it evlauting what has already happened?"..Collins right ?(soz i just cant call u dragin..its just wrong)
"Whether or not the Americans inflicted damage on the Iraqi nation in general so that it requires reconstruction is irrelevant. The point is, it needs reconstruction. Hence, it's getting it, in the form of American strategized contracts. "

look it happened we did it knwo we just have to live with teh consquences..whether oil goes up or down , whether the war was right or wrong, whether people are truley bettere of is orrelevent, its happened, now its a case of making the best with whts in front of us.........
 

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 KeypadSDM
Man this is getting tiresome.

Americans want oil, cheaply.

Wow, 4 words sum up EVERYTHING that's happened.
yes- thats what i've been trying to get across, but some ppl. seem to think that america is figthing the war for moral reasons. :D
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Originally posted by KeypadSDM
Man this is getting tiresome.

Americans want oil, cheaply.

Wow, 4 words sum up EVERYTHING that's happened.
And that seems to be majoring on what I've been arguing against in the vast span of words. It would be nice if you had some arguments to back yourself up, you know.
 

shelley

trouble maker
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
618
Location
in front of a computer most likely...
Gender
Female
HSC
2003
what i wanna know is why u guys fail to see (despite collin) that america isnt gettin oil cheaply..lol..for fucks sake, oil is primarily used for fuel, and america like australia is experiencin increased fuel prices WHICH ARE CAUSED BY THE GROWING DEMAND FROM ASIA AND TEH LIMITED SUPPLY!!!!!!!!!!! thus they didnt benifit what did happen was George Bush got himslef re elected..lol..so YES JUST FOR GODS SAKE LET THIS THREAD DIE OR RESEARCH YOUR FREKKIN CLAIMS GEEZ!!!!!!!!
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Lol, I love it when you go psycho. :lol:
 

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 shelley
what i wanna know is why u guys fail to see (despite collin) that america isnt gettin oil cheaply..lol..for fucks sake, oil is primarily used for fuel, and america like australia is experiencin increased fuel prices WHICH ARE CAUSED BY THE GROWING DEMAND FROM ASIA AND TEH LIMITED SUPPLY!!!!!!!!!!! thus they didnt benifit what did happen was George Bush got himslef re elected..lol..so YES JUST FOR GODS SAKE LET THIS THREAD DIE OR RESEARCH YOUR FREKKIN CLAIMS GEEZ!!!!!!!!
yes, the fuel prices are rising bcoz of limited supply and increasing demand- hence to keep the prices steady, or to decrease the oil prices (and moreso the power that having control over oil brings with it) america goes and invades iraq- the second biggest oil fields in the world...its too obvious ppl. they are not doing it as a "moral duty" to help the iraqis!!!
 

Collin

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
5,084
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I refuse to post in this thread until that scoudrel Ozz^e returns.

Oops, too late.
 

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

Top