[BallisticWookie]

[quote="CaP bUsTa":109b5]hahaha innoxx so true
i agree with solidus though i mean common guys, he's got better points than you guys have[/quote:109b5]

Which points would they be ?? His blown out of proportion conspiracy theories of Bush' hidden agenda ?? By the way, what exactly is Bush' agenda Solidus ? Please tell all !

[quote="Sargent_Scrotum":109b5]iv learned well from this board. dont even bother to try to convince someone that war with iraq is wrong cause it will only get you flamed. i just dont jgive a shit what you people think/say about the whole iraq thing anymore. i could go on for hours but why? il just get a reply like "why dont you stop telling us how to run our country to homo!" or some n00b comment like that.[/quote:109b5]

Why are you trying to convince us ? Why dont you back off and let us have our opinions ?? Isn't that what living in the West is all about ?? Democracy ? Freedom of thought and speech ? If not, then fuck me, I must be living in the wrong place. I too could ramble on for hours about why action, not neccessarily war, is absolutely 100% needed in the current climate (in the political and stability sense). I still have not seen any reason from any of you, NOT ONE PERSON, WHY action against Iraq is not warranted. You keep repeating the same lines over and over, like the "pro people" do to you, accept the difference is, we all have perfectly obvious reason WHY action is warranted. I'm getting alittle sick and tired of people like you, who think they are correct without a doubt thinking you can pressure people like me, into thinking what you do. This isnt fucking Iraq champ. I also believe I'm in a different situation then many of you. I have family members over there once again, I'm scared for their safety, but I'm confident they will get the job done if war is going to occur. Dont tell me whats right and fucking wrong when your family is not in the firing line.

Here's a nice little article I found in an Australian publication called the "The Bulletin" entitled "BLOOD, OIL AND IRAQ". Have a read those of you who think this is all about oil.

BY THE WAY, IT'S QUITE LARGE, AND IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO READ IT, DON'T EVEN BOTHER REPLYING TO ME ABOUT THE OIL SITUATION.

[quote:109b5]Vladimir Putin knows his value to George W. Bush. The US president hasn't talked to Gerhard Schroder, Germany's newly pacifist chancellor, in months. Jacques Chirac – zut! – Bush hasn't much time for him these days. Bush's relationship with Chinese President Jiang Zemin is chilly at best.

And so Bush's success in winning over the U.N. Security Council in coming weeks – especially the "permanent five" members with vetoes – could come down to Putin, the ex-KGB colonel whose soul Bush once looked into admiringly. Putin could be the key player in isolating the French-led antiwar faction and shifting Security Council opinion in favor of an attack-Iraq resolution.

No surprise, then, that the Russian and American presidents have been chatting a lot lately, and that one of Putin's pet subjects is oil. In a recent conversation, Putin asked Bush for reassurances that oil would not be permitted to drop too low (say, $US21 a barrel) if there were an Iraq war, administration officials said. Oil came up again last week when Putin's chief of staff, Aleksandr Voloshin, made the rounds in Washington. Along with visits to the White House and Secretary of State Colin Powell, Voloshin also met – with little publicity – with Commerce Secretary Don Evans. A key topic of discussion: the US-Russia Energy Partnership, an expansion of US investment in Russia's oil and gas industries.

Mind you, the Russians say, they are not the Turks, brazenly demanding billions in aid in exchange for support, as if Iraq were a piece of prime real estate (though, of course, it is). Moscow is not asking that Washington make any guarantees about maintaining price levels – the Bush administration insists it won't interfere with the market – or about Russian postwar oil interests in Iraq. But Russia has elicited reassurances from Bush and other officials that the United States will do its best "to protect Russia's economic interests" in the event of war.

The genteel dickering between Bush and Putin raises again the question of whether, as many protesters seem to believe, the imminent conflict is mainly a brazen US grab for Iraq's vast oilfields and reserves. Certainly much of the world thinks so, to judge from the number of NO BLOOD FOR OIL signs seen in protests worldwide. And as oil prices rise to their highest level since 1990-91 – nearly $US40 a barrel – there seems to be a greater urgency than ever about tapping Iraq's unused reserves, believed to be the second largest in the world.

In truth, except for Bush's harshest critics, few people believe that the seemingly imminent war involves a stark trade of blood for oil. Not least because such a policy makes no sense, oil experts say. Even if Washington were to seize Iraq's oil industry, the expense of a US war and occupation will far outweigh any benefit from Iraq's 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. Even a two-term Bush presidency would be long over before Iraq's broken economy realized its full capacity of 6 million barrels or more. Bush administration officials insist that US oil companies – which would love to get production-sharing agreements in postwar Iraq – have been kept at arm's length from interagency discussions for postwar planning. One official privy to those talks says they're bogged down in lawyerly squabbling. "It almost feels like seven blind men and an elephant. You've got the Pentagon lawyer saying, 'We can do what ever we want with Iraqi oil.' Then other lawyers will say, 'Hold on, Cochise, what about international law, and antitrust and competition law' ... There is no resolution."

Bush, in a speech last week, sought to lay the issue to rest at last. Iraq's "natural resources," he said, will be used only "for the benefit of the owners: the Iraqi people." The president also confirmed that Iraq's oil revenue would continue to be funneled through the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program, which will be the heart of the humanitarian-relief effort. Bush officials like to point out that Americans returned Kuwaiti oil to its rulers a decade ago. They've even developed a paper of talking points titled "Myths to Be Debunked." Among the standard lines is that if all America was looking for was cheap oil, Washington could cut a deal with Iraq: that would be far easier than going to war. One Pentagon official, asked why the administration can't at least admit that the oil-rich region is critical to America's economy – as Bush's father did in justifying the 1990-91 gulf war – responded, "Because then a lot of idiots would say it's about oil."

So what is the war about? As described by some officials, the administration's drive to take on Saddam began after 9-11 as a genuine fear of what this longtime US enemy could do with weapons of mass destruction. Saddam's ouster and the presumed Iraqi democracy to follow will be a two-part message to other autocrats who turn a blind eye to terrorism. First, that no pursuit of WMD will be tolerated; and second, that these leaders need to open up and reform their political systems and societies. This was the subtext of Bush's speech last week touting a grand vision for the Mideast. As one official puts it, "an icebreaker" is needed in the frozen mass of dysfunction of the Islamic world. Its autocratic and backward regimes, like Saudi Arabia's, only spur Islamist radicalism. "This is the crucial element that no one can talk [to the countries] about," concedes one Bush official. "The president can't say we want to scare all these other dictators, even the ones who have been 'friendly' to us."

Only as part of this grand vision does oil play into the administration's thinking – at least in the view of extreme hawks or "neoconservatives" like Richard Perle, the Defense Policy Board chairman who has long harbored a deep mistrust of Saudi Arabia. Especially since 9-11, the administration has sought to diversify its oil supplies beyond the Mideast, emphasizing new sources in Africa, Alaska and, yes, Russia. "The United States has had two mistresses in the Mideast for a long time: Israel and Saudi Arabia," says Raad Alkadiri of Petroleum Finance Corp. "This is to ensure that one is banished from the bed forever."

Most oil experts like Alkadiri scoff at this as a neocon fantasy. Saudi Arabia can't be marginalized, they say. Case in point: today, with the world's oil supplies strained, Riyadh controls some 75 percent of the excess capacity that will be needed to pull prices out of their upward climb (indeed, one reason prices are not even higher today is that the Saudis have ramped up production). Knowing this, even many Bush hawks concede that oil remains only a small part of the overall picture – "black gravy," as one official puts it. "It's almost a much bigger issue for Europe than for us," he says. "They're much more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Is it nice to have a country with so much oil on our side? Yes. But I don't think there's a strategy to exploit that." The question is, can Bush convince the rest of the world that this is true?[/quote:109b5]

[Pyro]

once again, you are blowing shit way out of proportion.

You want to see lots of people die? Then so be it. Overconfidence is a killer.

[BallisticWookie]

Originally Posted by Pyro

once again, you are blowing shit way out of proportion.

You want to see lots of people die? Then so be it. Overconfidence is a killer.

How am I blowing shit way out of proportion ?? I am being realistic which many of you are failing to be. You can sit their in Canada, with Iraqi operatives acting freely against the United States and your gutless Government doing nothing about it and call us out because our Countries are doing something about a threat, but dont tell me that what I am saying is out of proportion because it is not. Do you have any evidence to suggest that what I am saying is out of proportion ?? If not, STFU and let me have my opinon, like you can have yours. Capiche ??

And if you would like to see lots of people die, lets all do nothing about Saddam and let him build his weapons over the next few years. Doing nothing about this situation is also, as you say, a killer. I'm not over confident, I'm just simply being, once again, realistic.

[SoLiDUS]

[url:0ca7e]http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20030315gc.htm[/url:0ca7e]

EAT IT.

[Pyro]

I think Ballwook is not swallowing it well.

[Vance]

[quote="White Rabbit":9dedf]speaking of flaming
this guy only has 7 posts and is already starting to flame eatthis:[/quote:9dedf]
Your joking, right?

[BallisticWookie]

Eat what exactly ? All I see there are more conspiracy theories about events which took place over 30 years ago. You are not changing my opinion about Iraq, so deal with it. I am still to see any reason why action against Iraq is not warranted. You always seem to skip this point dont you.

[SoLiDUS]

Originally Posted by BallisticWookie

Eat what exactly ? All I see there are more conspiracy theories about events which took place over 30 years ago. You are not changing my opinion about Iraq, so deal with it. I am still to see any reason why action against Iraq is not warranted. You always seem to skip this point dont you.

I'm not skipping anything; au contraire, you're too dense to see what I keep
shoving in front of your eyes. I won't attempt to make any of you see the
light anymore: this is my last post in regards to Politics. I'll just stay away
from subjectivity central.

By the way, Wook, does this mean I'll be passed as MOD ? *chuckle*

[BallisticWookie]

So, you're right, we're wrong ? Is that how it is ? I'm dense because I hold a different opinion to you ? I'll say it bluntly, I think you're an arrogant prick. "*chuckle*"

No, this doesnt mean I'll pass you up as a Mod, but I do have other people in mind who will get the job long before you. Keep one thing in mind, you're opinion is yours, and you're entitled to that, but don't you fucking call me or others dense just because our view differs from yours. Got that ? If you cant deal with that, then there is something very wrong with you.

[Himmler]

damn lotsa reading in this thread hehe

[SoLiDUS]

Originally Posted by BallisticWookie

So, you're right, we're wrong ? Is that how it is ? I'm dense because I hold a different opinion to you ? I'll say it bluntly, I think you're an arrogant prick. "*chuckle*"

Keep one thing in mind, you're opinion is yours, and you're entitled to that, but don't you fucking call me or others dense just because our view differs from yours. Got that ? If you cant deal with that, then there is something very wrong with you.

If I keep telling you 2+2 is 4, and prove it... and still, you disagree or don't
want to accept it, what am I to do ? Enough is enough. Go ahead, bomb Iraq
and do whatever it is you think will appease you once and for all.

[quote:1a5bd]No, this doesnt mean I'll pass you up as a Mod, but I do have other people in mind who will get the job long before you. [/quote:1a5bd]

LOL. You're passing up your best prospect for another Joe ? So be it. I won't
ask again...

[BallisticWookie]

Originally Posted by SoLiDUS

If I keep telling you 2+2 is 4, and prove it... and still, you disagree or don't
want to accept it, what am I to do ? Enough is enough. Go ahead, bomb Iraq
and do whatever it is you think will appease you once and for all.

[quote:390f6]No, this doesnt mean I'll pass you up as a Mod, but I do have other people in mind who will get the job long before you.

LOL. You're passing up your best prospect for another Joe ? So be it. I won't
ask again...[/quote:390f6]

You dont ask if you can become Mod. We choose.

You haven't proven shit as far as taking action against Iraq is somehow a bad thing, granted military action is always terrible, but Iraq is leaving a rather dwindling amount of ways this situation could be handled, and diplomacy is well and truly not the answer. All you've done is quote some news reports and added nothing yourself except cheap shots at me and other people like me who share the same views on Iraq. Comparing mathematics and a political situation such as this is a rather bad choice. You make it seem so clear cut that you're view is the only view and opinion that is correct, well I'm sorry to dissappoint you, but you're view and anti war stance arent the only opinions out there.

How would you resolve this situation while still dealing with Iraq but not giving them any more leeway than they already have ? Could you resolve it ? Hell, the entire UN is divided on this, they are as useless and gutless as I have ever seen them. Give me YOUR view on this, do not quote someone and give me a snide remark in under 5 words which all you really have been doing. I'll say it again, I still have not seen any clear proof from anyone that is against the action (either through the UN or through military intervention) of why such action would be the wrong thing.

[Innoxx]

Dude, BW. Sloi is the perfect canidate for the next mod. He's been here for a long time, he's intellegent, and knows his way around phpbb2. The only thing that might set him off as mod is the lack of time he spends online. Wookie you say you have other people in mind, well as a community I think we dserve to hear who else you have in mind.

[BallisticWookie]

This aint the place for this discussion, continue it elsewhere.

[BallisticWookie]

Frankly guys, I'm scared shitless of the prospect of war, not only for all the men and women over there doing as their told, but especially for my cousins. I dont want them dead, God knows I dont want them dead, but none, NONE of you have been over there, one of my cousins who is now back there, operated in the Gulf for over 6 months just recently, does he think military action is the right thing ? You're damn right he does. He told me very little about whats going on there, but everything he knew, he got from his friend in the Intel, they know stuff, you will never hear on the news, he didnt go into details, but Saddam has to go, and now is the right time.

The majority of Iraqi civilians who fleed Iraq here in Australia WANT this war, because Saddam will be gone. Those people are oppressed, and the only reason they are seen the way the are on the news is because they are frightened of Saddams Secret Police coming along and blowing their brains out. There is an absolute abundance of reasons why removing Saddam and his Baath party is a good idea, either by diplomatic (UN) means (however that is unlikely) or military means.