Communists on the moon !

[Fyron]

Originally posted by oleg:
Oh, yes, the true driving force behind the "War on Terror".
Here is an amusing news flash from BBC news :

"An oil services firm formerly run by US Vice President Dick Cheney may have overcharged US forces in Iraq by some $61m, a Pentagon audit has found."

Can anybody calculate how much a gallon of Iraqi and/or US blood cost now ?

A lot less than the gallons of Iraqi, Irani, Kuwati, etc, etc, etc, blood lost under Saddam's brutal rule...

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by Roanon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
I can’t help but to point out that the PRICE of FREEDOM is PRICELESS.

I don't want to hurt your feelings, but this war is for oil and money, not for freedom.

---

If you Sir think that my friend died, or that my wife is going in harms way because of oil than I submit, that you are only looking at one aspect of a larger picture. If this where “only for oil” than why are we investing the lives of our families to rebuild the country. We could simply conquer and take, then subjugate. There is no one left in this world that would bother (over Iraq at least) to offer serious opposition to an occupation. You are speaking of something that is a popularized notion left over from the first war. Furthermore to demean the troops of any nation by calling their effort nothing more than a push to control oil is just pure wrong. It would be more accurate to say that the respective government has sent the troops for the goal of controlling the oil [fields].

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by oleg:
Oh, yes, the true driving force behind the "War on Terror".
Here is an amusing news flash from BBC news :

"An oil services firm formerly run by US Vice President Dick Cheney may have overcharged US forces in Iraq by some $61m, a Pentagon audit has found."

Can anybody calculate how much a gallon of Iraqi and/or US blood cost now ?

A lot less than the gallons of Iraqi, Irani, Kuwati, etc, etc, etc, blood lost under Saddam's brutal rule...

---

YES! Thank You Imperator Fyron! No one wants to think of that when they talk about "A War for Oil".

[Roanon]

Originally posted by Loser:
Please back this claim up with facts. I have not seen them yet, and do not care for intuitive deduction.

How about backing up the claim that it is war for freedom with facts? Up to now there are only a lot of missing facts, like these alleged numbers of weapons of mass destruction that were never found, plus a lot of pretty obvious lies and very crude falsifications (like this contract about uranium from Niger). If there is nothing else than lies backing this up, I am pretty sure we can dismiss this "freedom" claim as utterly untrue.

As not many other reasons remain, the most obvious one - oil and money - is backed up by the dollars already made, and by the positions of those people involved and near Bush, and their relations to companies scheduled to make money in Iran. I simply do not want to repeat those long lists of names and companies, simple web searches will do for everyone really interested in the facts (start with Haliburton). I think listing here is wasted effort because I know that people wanting to believe a heroic lie you will not even be impressed by facts.

[Loser]

Pointing out the weakness in counter-arguments does not make you own argument any stronger. You have started from the position that your position is sound and obvious and, unsurprisingly, have found your way back there in the end.

I am not trying to convince you that WMD or 'freedom' were the reasons for the war. In fact I don't believe they were, I'm much more of a hawk than you might think.

What I'm asking is if you can provide any real proof that the war was over money and/or oil. Just because you can't think of any better reasons doesn't mean they're not out there.

You might check my Posts in the infamous Iraq thread for my own opinions on the real reasons for the war, should you be curious about other alternatives that may, or may not, have been well thought out.

[edit: more damn thoughts.]

Every war has vultures making money off the tragedy, sometimes they're Marshal-Planning the ruined nation back into prosperity, sometimes they're Carpetbaggers and Scallywags pushing the conquered rebels further into economic ruin. Just because someone is making money off the aftermath does not mean that's why it happened to begin with.

Someone always makes money off the aftermath, it's hardly noble but pretty universal. And if someone in power makes room for himself and his friends at this table he has special access to it only indicates he is an opportunist, very human.

I believe the phrase post hoc ergo propter hoc describes that argument. Surely you can come up with something better to support your position.

[ December 13, 2003, 04:24: Message edited by: Loser ]

[Cipher7071]

All I know is that none of us are able to see the entire picture, and there is a good chance that each is at least partially correct.

As to the moon... I think it was realized several years ago that we don't really need to send people to the moon, or mars, or anywhere else to learn many of the things we want to know about those places. Much of it can be done well enough robotically. Robotic units are smaller, cost less, and do not carry the problem of trying to keep people alive during the mission...except here on Earth, of course.

[geoschmo]

Good point Cipher. WIth the advances in computer technology and virtual reality, I think we are closer to the day when we can "visit the moon" virtually then we are actually getting there in person. I am speaking from a commercial perspective here. I could easily see people paying a few hundred dollars to sit in an ultra relistic virtual reality booth and getting to control a robotic probe in real time tooling around the surface of the moon. I think it would be pretty cool myself.

[ December 12, 2003, 15:30: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Roanon]

Originally posted by President Elect Shang:
If you Sir think that my friend died, or that my wife is going in harms way because of oil than I submit, that you are only looking at one aspect of a larger picture. If this where “only for oil” than why are we investing the lives of our families to rebuild the country.

Of course it is not that simple, but I think the MAIN reason is money and oil. The reasons for other actions are a mixture of coverup and obscurement - like they faked treaties and intel reports, Bush just cannot openly admit to the world that he is only interested in oil. Plus, there certainly is an actual interest in peace and freedom for Irak, from a few of the actually involved people - after all, most of the time only the top is corrupt and greedy, I consider most of the "normal" people being honest and having good intentions.

But you may not get the complete uncensored picture in US. Here in Germany they have shown reports and films that would never have passed the censorship there. One of them showed soldiers raiding a village in the middle of the night, in search of terrorists of course, but still with brutality and against nothing else than unarmed civilians. Smashing doors and dragging people outside, deporting them away from their families and crying children, probably never to be seen again, without any legal procedure before or anything legal possible afterwards. Arrested without proof, just because of suspected resistance somewhere near. Handcuffed behind their backs with pLastic bands, black hoods drawn over their heads to deprive them of orientation, thrown on the back of a truck where they had to ride for miles on rough bumpy roads, lying helpless on their bellies.

You saw the fear and terror in the faces of the civilians, and the whole scene reminded me of a nazi army raiding an occupied land - and it doesn't matter to these people if their husbands, fathers, and relatives are deported into a nazi concentration camp or to an equally lawless camp in Guantanamo. Don't get me wrong, it was not like the soldiers enjoyed their brutality, but german soldiers executing orders of a nazi general probably didn't either. And the cold and professional brutality gave the whole action an eeary, chilly atmosphere. This certainly was not an action for freedom, regardless of how it was intended, this genereated nothing else than hatred and disgust.

[Roanon]

Originally posted by Loser:
What I'm asking is if you can provide any real proof that the war was over money and/or oil. Just because you can't think of any better reasons doesn't mean they're not out there.

Is there any proof you would accept? Is there any other reason you can present? Or proof?
Of course, nobody can know anything for sure. The theory of relativity has never been proven also, but still it is widely taken as accepted fact.

If you discard the main efforts for money as unintentional or kind of collateral damage, and single out a few isolated incidents and generalize them, you can prove everything and nothing.

Remember, I didn't start this discussion. There was someone stating that this war was for freedom. You never asked him to prove his statement, why?
I am sick that these obvious lies are accepted face-on, and that someone pointing out the obvious has to prove it beyond every unreasonable doubt. I *may* be wrong, but that this war is for freedom certainly *is* wrong.

Last posting here, I don't want to escalate it further and I am more angry than I should be when posting. And, as I said before, it is utterly useless to point out facts to someone who wants to believe in an alternate reality.

[Cyrien]

Double Post

[ December 12, 2003, 16:18: Message edited by: Cyrien ]