quote:
quote:
I did address the point. AFTER I said that (which you have conveniently left out) I said even if it was true some past administrations purposely did not support democracy in Iraq, I don't know how you can argue it is of political benefit to anyone, except maybe to see the current administration tarnished.
Way to SELECTIVELY LEAVE OUT THE FACTS.
1. False. I did not leave that point out. I left it in. I quoted it in full and responded to it. You cannot even pay attention to the post you're replying to. I can't tell if you're lying or just mentally challenged. I pick the latter, because no one would tell a lie this obvious.
You didn't respond in full to it. Unless saying "ha ha, yet right" is responding to the question. Also you still don't say how the U.S. getting run out or Iraq is better for big oil then us staying and setting up a working government.
2. Eroding the the hegemony of OPEC. What an astounding phrase. We have to take the "valuable oil field" from the oil-producing Eastern country, because otherwise the Oil Producing Eastern Countries will have "hegemony" over the oil... that they produce...
I can only stand in awe of the mentality that enables you not only to think like this, but to set it in writing and hit "send." I really don't see a way to address a "point" like that, so I prefer to let it stand on its own.
So you are in favor of the economics of a cartel? Or Saddam lording over oil fields? Why are coprporations exploiting oil field such a satanic act in your mind, while Saddam's exploiting of oil fields is in tune with nature in your mind?
3. Speaking of not addressing the point! Let's see, I asked why the US is avoiding Saddam's prosecution under international humanitarian law, and speculated (along with andy) that it is because the US is heavily implicated in his past crimes. And your response is that all is well as long as Saddam is punished.
No you just asked why we weren't bringing Saddam to justice in your post to me. You didn't ask "is it because the U.S. is implicated in his crimes?" If the U.S. committed a crime in Iraq, why do they have to wait for Saddam to be captured to accuse the U.S. of the crimes? Your argument doesn't make sense.
quote:
4. You'll "believe in subversion when...?" You've already stated that you see perfectly well how the US is subverting international law, and said you don't give a damn.
I said I'll believe in the subversion of bringing Saddam to justice. I didn't say I'll believe in any subversion. Once again, if you could cut up and paste my argument in any way, then yes, maybe you would have a point. Idiot.
5. Yours is a remarkable version of history. Not only did Bush I (and previous administrations) "not put sanctions on the Saddam regime" before the first Gulf War-- they supported Saddam in full view of his crimes. How can I address your "point" that we didn't invade or sanction Saddam because we didn't have cause, when in fact we were aiding the monster? It doesn't even make sense.
My point is there wasn't enough international political will to go after Saddam. Look at my example of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royals aren't a savory bunch, but there is absolutely no chance the international community, much less the American people, would look the other way for a war on their country. Such was it for Iraq before they INVADED KUWAIT.
6. Where the hell do you get this stuff? That's just flat-out false. In fact, the opposition to the war emphasizes US support for undemocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia. It's one of the reasons I've offered for disbelieving that the US wants to support democracy in the region. Tell me how I'm supposed to address a "point" that proceeds from such an idiotic statement.
Oh my god you're right. Someone "made a point about Saudi Arabia". That isn't the equivalent of people being up in arms. Get real. It doesn't look good that we are cozy with Saudi Arabia, we would love it if we were cozy with a democratic Saudi Arabia rather than a dictatorial Saudi Arabia. But again I point out we cannot fix the situation with force, and we can't ignore the importance of Saudi Arabia to our economy, and post 9-11, our security.
7. Absolutely right. You asked who could possibly benefit from the failure of democracy in Iraq. I said: "A more sensible question is, who profits from tyranny in Iraq (and many other places where we have supported it)?" [MAKK! ALERT! THIS WOULD INCLUDE SAUDI ARABIA!] "One answer is the energy lobby, a.k.a. "big oil." Hardly "a political enemy of Bush."
I'm sorry, adding "and many other places where we have supported it" in parenthesis after that fact doesn't change what we were really talking about. You were saying we don't want a real democracy in Iraq. I asked who in the administration would benefit from democracy failing. Period. Don't point to Saudi Arabia. What about Iraq, right now, today?
Don't cut up my words, don't answer only half of a sentence, don't add parenthetical qualifiers to my or your arguments. Answer the question. Explain to me the logic that says "the administration or big oil will profit if Iraq, present-day, falls apart."
quote:
One answer is "big oil." You're right-- another answer is Europe-- more precisely, "big oil" in Europe. That you think this "point" somehow refutes mine is bizarre.
Yes, big oil in Europe was taking advantage of Saddam's dictatorship while U.S. big oil was playing by the rules. That you think think your "point" somehow refutes mine is bizarre.
quote:
8. Also, this is precisely where I addressed your question, "I don't know how you can argue it is of political benefit to anyone, except maybe to see the current administration tarnished"-- which you falsely accused me of leaving out and not addressing. See point 1, above, if you've already forgotten that you did this.
Ok I'm looking at your "point one":
Oh yeah, that explains everything.
Moron.
9. We didn't.
We didn't install Saddam?
quote:
As you note, many tyrannies (such as Saudi Arabia) survive with enthusiastic US support. We got rid of Saddam for the reasons you've noted: France and Germany, i.e., our competitors, were profiting from access to his oil market. Again, you have said this yourself.
It wasn't simply that they were profitting, but that they were going around the intent of the sanctions on Iraq to not finiancially support the Saddam regime.
quote:
10. You can't suppose we ousted Saddam for his invasion of Kuwait, because that happened over 10 years ago, and Bush left him in there.
He delayed going in because he wanted full international support before doing so. He only had full international support to kick them out of Kuwait. He waited, played by the rules, lost the election, and Saddam won. I'm glad his son learned the lesson to do what needs to be done when you have the political capital to do it, and ignore the illusion that international policy by consensus is naturally the more correct course of action.
quote:
11. And, as you've noted, big oil does profit from its relationship with tyrannies. You provided the example of Saudi Arabia. Thank you.
I was asking how big oil would profit by chaos reigning in Iraq. I'm sorry you are confusing the two countries. They are not even similarly spelled, like "Iraq" and "Iran" so I'm not sure as to the source of your confusion.
AGAIN I ask: how will big oil benefit if we cannot stabilize Iraq? How will big oil, or even the adminstration, or really anyone who voted for using force in Iraq, benefit if we leave Iraq in disgrace, and the new democracy we are pushing for is destroyed? Or have you hoped all your stalling and misdirection has covered up this point you made, that the U.S. doesn't want a democracy to work in Iraq?
---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008
