What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gas Station Pic

  • Thread starter Ozzy
  • Start date
  • #21
It's like people forget the fact that they're a bunch of religious fanatics. Seriously dude. And no, I don't mean like terrorists, I mean they're complete nut jobs who have Shariah law. But of course, as long as they have the oil, we will be their lapdogs.

We were their good buddies when Saddam was in power and they were afraid of him, but now they have nothing to be afraid of. As bad as Saddam was, Irag and America were better off with him in power. the fact that we went to war with Iraq is so stupid. Imagine being in a room full of people, and the guy next to you punches you in the fact, then you give him a little slap on the wrist, run across the room to another dude who doesn't know what's going on, and beat the crap out of him until he's barely recognizable. That's pretty much what we did. And do you know why? It's because Saddam tried to kill his father.
 
  • #22
I don't know if America was better off with him in power. He did harbor terrorists, and even had a known terrorist operating as a wing of the Iraqi army. The notion that "there were no terrorists when Saddam was in power" is completely and utterly false.
Plus, right before we invaded, he started selling oil only in Euros, so our economy probably would be worse off too. I'm not saying this is a justification, just something to take notice of.
 
  • #23
There may have been, but they aren't the ones who flew into the WTC.

The American dollar is so weak it's embarrassing.
 
  • #24
Imagine being in a room full of people, and the guy next to you punches you in the fact, then you give him a little slap on the wrist, run across the room to another dude who doesn't know what's going on, and beat the crap out of him until he's barely recognizable. That's pretty much what we did. And do you know why? It's because Saddam tried to kill his father.

I have been saying this for years. In fact I said it in 1999, before the supreme court appointed him as president. I told my wife if he's elected he would take out Saddam just to finish what his Dad was accused of failing at. Then when Saddam put the hit on bush sr. it was pretty much game on and nothing was going to stop the idiot from invading Iraq. He used the blood of the people that was killed in 9/11 for his own purposes.
The truth is starting to come out. Look at the new book his former press secretary just published. He pretty much said what I said he would do even before he did it. After the murder is out of office I think more of his staff will turn on him.


. He did harbor terrorists, and even had a known terrorist operating as a wing of the Iraqi army. The notion that "there were no terrorists when Saddam was in power" is completely and utterly false.

I'm sorry but you are completely wrong. There was no al qaeda in Iraq until the US invaded. Saddam and Bin Laden were bitter enemies. The only terrorist in Iraq were Saddam and his army.
 
  • #25
The US also harbors terrorists and and places their supporters in high level positions. And it's inevitable that more oil will be priced in Euros. I wouldn't want to be paid with Monopoly money either.
 
  • #26
I'm sorry but you are completely wrong. There was no al qaeda in Iraq until the US invaded. Saddam and Bin Laden were bitter enemies. The only terrorist in Iraq were Saddam and his army.
Sorry, but you're horribly and completely mistaken. It has never been proven that there was "no Al Qaeda in Iraq". The thought that that is a fact is an oft repeated fallacy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d7fHvHXeiQ
 
  • #27
I don't know what your video proved, because it didn't prove anything to me. You need to study the relationship between Saddam and al qaeda, or lack of one. I guess all the terrorist were hiding under all the WMD that saddam was producing.

The terrorist came into Iraq after the US invaded.

Show me one piece of evidence that says otherwise.
 
  • #28
If it didn't prove anything to you, you must not have had the sound on. You said there were no terrorists in Iraq when Saddam was in power, which is totally fictitious. There certainly are many more terrorists in Iraq after Saddam, but you've got to be totally naive to think that there were none while he was in power. The video names 3 or 4 known terrorists that were in Iraq before the US invaded, one of which operated as an arm of the Iraqi state....I really don't see how you can not understand that, pretty simple concept.

The terrorist came into Iraq after the US invaded.

Show me one piece of evidence that says otherwise.
Ok, no problem: http://bluestarchronicles.com/2007/08/11/al-qaeda-trained-in-fallujah-iraq-under-saddam-hussein%E2%80%99s-regime/
Straight from the horse's mouth, too! Looks like you're the one that should be doing the studying ;)
This too: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5181


Got some more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
Was in Iraq, and allowed to operate w/ Saddam's knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi
In Iraq at least by 2002

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=610693BA-4E49-4B2F-9837-B552C3D54A6C

OH NO! OH MY GOD! IT CAN'T BE!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline
Look at the contracts from 95 onward

Remember in 98 when Clinton said Al Sifa Pharma plant was producing WMDs (chemical weapons) and was a joint operation between Al Qaeda and Saddam....and used that as justification to bomb it????
http://www.espac.org/al_shifa_pages/al-shifa_4.asp

Ramzi Yousef and his Uncle, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, bomed the WTC in ‘93. Guess where they came from? They traveled on Iraqi passports and came from Baghdad. His uncle was also part of Al Qaeda.

UH-OH! Look at this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947627/posts
and this: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
and this: http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp

Time to admit you're wrong.
 
  • #29
Ok I don't have time to go through all your crap. But I did look at a few of them. Here is what YOUR evidence says.


About Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

He was believed to have formed al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, which later became the group called Al-Qaeda in Iraq, in the 1990s, and led it until his death in June 2006.

I know you think that is proof that he was in Iraq in the 90's, but he wasn't and that's not what it says.

al-Tawhid wal-Jihad became Al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004.

Following Zarqawi's October 17, 2004 pledge of allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, the group gradually became popularly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (official name Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn)

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (Arabic: أبومصعب الزرقاوي‎, ’Abū Muṣ‘ab az-Zarqāwī, Abu Musab from Zarqa)) (October 30, 1966June 7, 2006), born Ahmad Fadeel al-Nazal al-Khalayleh (Arabic: أحمد فضيل النزال الخلايله‎, ’Aḥmad Faḍīl an-Nazāl al-Ḫalāyla) was a Jordanian militant Islamist who ran a militant training camp in Afghanistan. He became known after going to Iraq and being accused by United States and Jordanian officials for a series of bombings, beheadings and attacks during the Iraq War.

Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support

Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa'ida and Saddam Hussein's regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments. Postwar findings have identified two occasions, not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al'Qa'ida and Iraq.

As a result of the Senate report, many believe that the entire connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda constitutes an official deception based on the "cherry-picking" of only that intelligence that bolstered the case for war with Iraq regardless of its reliability. The BBC reports the reaction to this report;

Thank you so much for providing evidence that proves what I have been saying.

I think a quote from the first youtube video somes it up the best.

Christopher Hitchens : "How can you know so little about this and mumble, mumble"
Sorry I couldn't understand what he said at the end.

Ronald Regan Jr. : "I guess because I listened to the 9/11 commission and read their report and they said that Saddam hussein was not supporting terror"

Now I never said there has never been a terrorist in Iraq. There are terrorist in every country. Saddam was no danger to the US in any way, including through terrorism.
 
  • #30
I know you think that is proof that he was in Iraq in the 90's,
I never said that, I said 2002. Read before you attempt to misrepresent me, it makes your argument look weaker than it already is. Just an interesting side note though; can you PROVE he was never in Iraq in the 90s? Do you have a play by play analysis of his entire life? I'm going to assume you don't.

Maybe you should have actually read the article on Zarqawi I posted, hmm? This isn't going to do wonders for your argument either:
When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day. During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These Al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months.
WHOAH! That PROVES he was in Iraq in 2002, just like I said! Imagine that!
the Iraqi regime was, at a minimum, aware of al-Zarqawi’s presence in Baghdad in 2002
Bingo! I said he was in Iraq in 2002, and not surprisingly, I was right.
Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of October 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere
Uh oh...looks like Iraqi officials were giving him weapons. Kinda totally nullifies the claims that he wasn't there and terrorism didn't exist under Saddam.
As to the report you quoted, 1) it said that it didn't find evidence that they had ties, not that there wasn't any. Just because you can't find evidence of something, especially at a given time, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or may not be eventually proven true. 2) "it also recognizes that there are still unanswered questions and gaps in knowledge about the relationship.""
"...by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa'ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They found a comfortable and secure envirnonment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi's operations in northern Iraq."
Your "evidence" is speculative, at best.

Thank you so much for providing evidence that proves what I have been saying.
Yes, because hard evidence against your claims (with little, speculative support) totally supports your position. Let's not be silly.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
["Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
Maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to temporarily stop ignoring fact, just for a few moments, and read this:
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/
This one might help clear some things up too: http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Here's some other interesting info: http://www.cfr.org/publication/7702/

http://www.globalpolitician.com/2323-iraq

http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc159.htm

I could go on, but anyone with an inkling of logic can see that I've already torn your embarrassingly weak argument to shreds. I love proof, especially when the balance is heavily, well ok, totally, tipped in my favor. ;)

epicfail.jpg
 
  • #31
Quoting a bunch of hacks proves what? al-Zarqawi’s presence in northern Iraq means nothing, other than that the US was OK with him being there, since the US had much more influence in Kurdish territory than Hussein did at that time. The US supposedly decided it would be more damaging to target him than to leave him alone. That doesn't support him being seen as a pivotal player. He certainly became one, alligning with al-Quaeda after the US attacked Afghanistan and preparing to take on the expected US invasion of Iraq. Many believe his image was boosted by US propaganda, which sought to portray him as having great strength, inflence and general evilness, when he was actually just one of a number of self-indulgent, interchangeable murderers.

But I'm lost; what does this have to do with the topic? Last I heard, neither al-Zarqawi or Saddam Hussein or anyone else from the Middle East has ever been accused of forcing even a single American to a buy big car to drive to and from a big house full of big appliances too far from everything. Much of the pain at the pump is self-inflicted.
 
  • #32
But I'm lost; what does this have to do with the topic? Last I heard, neither al-Zarqawi or Saddam Hussein or anyone else from the Middle East has ever been accused of forcing even a single American to a buy big car to drive to and from a big house full of big appliances too far from everything. Much of the pain at the pump is self-inflicted.

Wrong, Bruce. Saddam sent me a personal email explaining the benefits of driving a Hummer. I'll never forgive him for deceiving me and now he's dead; so I guess he got the last laugh.

xvart.
 
  • #33
hahahhaa
here is the gas prices for our area...this is a station right up the road.
its pretty rediculus actually.
gasprices.jpg
 
  • #34
Quoting a bunch of hacks proves what?
So USAToday, The Wall Street Journal, and ABC (among others) are "a bunch of hacks"? Just where do you get your news from :jester:

al-Zarqawi’s presence in northern Iraq means nothing,
No, it proves that he was in Iraq before the US invasion running terrorist training camps.

Many believe his image was boosted by US propaganda
Who cares? That doesn't mean he wasn't there, doing terrorist things, with Saddam's full knowledge.....because he was. Also, Zarqawi was just one guy that's a good example. There were plenty of other terrorists there too. All the people in his training camps, the guy operating out of an Iraqi office, etc, etc.


Personally, it's hard for me to definitively say if going into Iraq was a good idea or not. I think it can both ways depending on your personal views and what you look at. However, the idea that Saddam was not exporting terror in any way, shape, or form is either completely ignorant, or down right laughable (I could think of a better word...) at best. Even if you think Zarqawi wasn't there (which he was) and that he wasn't doing terrorist things (which he was), Saddam has been proven to back (at least financially) other terrorist groups, though not usually ones with the goal of an Islamic state. Being a secular dictator didn't make him any less guilty of having a terror state. Hell, he committed terrorist acts against his own people....
 
  • #35
New Alaskan oil into the mix, the reserves are big but not THAT big, as in big enough to force prices down to reasonable levels. With the huge and ever increasing demand, the best we could hope for is for the prices to rise more slowly... unless all of that oil goes directly to domestic consumption. Even then, so? It would not magically fix all the price problems.

). Plus, if we lost some species (which will happen anywhere you drill), so what? 99.9% of anything to ever live is extinct....do we REALLY need a seal with 5 hairs on its cheek instead of 3? And that's if it even happened. New species specifically adapted to disturbances will rush in to fill the gaps, and life goes on. I'm into environmental responsibility and all, but there's a point where it just gets ridiculous.
Fail. People causing a species to become extinct and vanish that might not have otherwise (or evolved into new species) and justifying it "because species go extinct" is like someone walking up to a random person and shooting them in the head because everyone dies. New people will move in to fill that persons role, so its OK.

Same justification. And just as faulty.
 
  • #36
Again I'll quote Ronald Reagan Jr.

Ronald Regan Jr. : "I guess because I listened to the 9/11 commission and read their report and they said that Saddam hussein was not supporting terror"

I see you got your info from wikipedia. There was also terrorist in the US, does that mean we support terror?

Just because he was there does not mean that Saddam was keeping terrorists.

Everything you showed says that Zarqawi went to Iraq for the sole purpose of killing Americans, and I believe that. I can't help it if you take that as meaning Saddam supported terrorist. Just because you heard some crackpot say it and you're like a sheep and follow whatever they say don't make it true. The invasion of the US was no secret, so I'm sure some terrorist showed up to start making plans before the invasion, that still does not mean that Saddam supported. Saddam was desperate because he knew we were coming. He probably probably let in anybody that was willing to fight us. The fact is, Saddam didn't support al-Quaeda and you can't show any proof that he did.
The fact is the US supported al-Quaeda more than Saddam did.
 
  • #37
The 9/11 commission did not prove Saddam was not supporting terror. It said they "found no functional link between Saddam and Al Qaeda [in regards to 9/11]". You are taking that as, "there is no link between Saddam and terrorism". That's your fault for horribly and completely misinterpreting the report.

Yeah, I put a link or two up from Wikipedia, what's your point? The majority were not from Wikipedia, and they echoed the same points.

There was also terrorist in the US, does that mean we support terror?
Let's not be completely silly here. We aren't giving terrorists in our country weapons, or money, or turning a blind eye to them while they set up training camps, etc.

Just because you heard some crackpot say it and you're like a sheep and follow whatever they say don't make it true.
Yes, because I quoted numerous sources which included The Wall Street Journal, ABC, USAToday, and others, that makes me a sheep following crackpots. Let's get serious here. You're sticking to a horrible personal misinterpretation of one source, that admits that they didn't know for sure, while ignoring multiple others. That makes you sound tragically uneducated.

The fact is, Saddam didn't support al-Quaeda and you can't show any proof that he did.
I have shown multiple proofs, you're just ignoring them. On the other hand you have shown nothing besides a flawed report, and "because Ozzy said so". You're embarrassing yourself by ignoring proof and having basically no argument. AGAIN, he gave terrorists weapons, had contracts with Al Qaeda/helped them, harbored the guys that bombed the WTC in 93, had a terrorist operating as an arm of the Iraqi state, etc. But hey, all the reputable sources I quoted clearly mean nothing, because ozzy doesn't believe them! Sorry champ, but the truth isn't subject to a vote. If you can't believe fact, that doesn't make it any less true. You seriously should look into the abundant evidence instead of steadfastly clinging to one faulty report. I wouldn't have made some of the statements you did for fear of my personal integrity being called into question....and rightfully so.

This is like arguing with a brick wall built on fallacy and misconception. Tragic.


And just for the record, "crackpots" = some random guy with a livejournal or something posting nothing but opinions that are way out there. On the other hand, I've used information from the Wall Street Journal, The New York Sun, New York Post, ABC, the DoD, CBS, etc, etc. Let's get our definitions straight before we just start randomly talking, k? I appeal to the audience's sense of rationality and reason to see that my opponent's argument is clearly and severely lacking....so much that he must resort to calling my reputable sources horrible, while providing absolutely none of his own :jester:. Laughable indeed!
 
  • #38
Plus, if we lost some species (which will happen anywhere you drill), so what? 99.9% of anything to ever live is extinct....do we REALLY need a seal with 5 hairs on its cheek instead of 3? And that's if it even happened. New species specifically adapted to disturbances will rush in to fill the gaps, and life goes on. I'm into environmental responsibility and all, but there's a point where it just gets ridiculous.

You're right!!!
Why bother trying to preserve Sarracenia? The NASC should just grow one type. I mean, they're pretty much the same, no? Oooh- sorry, one's a bit more red than the other.
And Neps? Gimme a break! This one's got SPOTS and this one's got teeny little hairs. Blah, all the same. I'm sure there are plenty of sedges, shrubs, grasses that'd be more than happy to fill in for these plants.

Honestly, who'd miss 'em?
....
Catchin' what I'm throwin'?
 
  • #39
Catchin' what I'm throwin'?
Yep. This is just a general answer to both you and finch (forgot to answer him). This is the way I think about it. We clearly have an oil-based economy, correct? The increase in oil prices is increasing the price of oh, I don't know....everything. Most importantly for our survival, food. There are two prevailing economic theories about what will happen in the future based on our debt-based money system and oil . A) The US will continue on indefinitely because it is in the interest of everyone. B) The US economy will crash, and we'll suffer a horrible depression, rivaling the Great Depression....but it will be worse. Scenario A clearly is not going to be the case, because China and the Middle East don't give a damn about the US, nor do they need us (though those Saudis love our money and weapons). Europe's economies are walking circles around ours as well, and though they wouldn't be as profitable, they could certainly continue to survive if the US crumbled. How could scenario B be worse than the Great Depression? The simple answer is that we're no longer such an agrarian society, and most people live in urban areas. During the GD, the opposite was the case, and most people still ate, though not too frequently....at least they survived. If we have an economic depression of that sort again, a very, very large number of people would die of starvation and malnutrition. So, in my mind, avoiding or at least staving off that disaster seems a much better idea than keeping around a seal with an extra 2 hairs, especially if 3-haired seal would proliferate in its place.

Will someone show me some reputable numbers of what kind of an effect it could have on the environment? The closest I've found is, "environmentalists fear....". Environmentalists (the militant ones) are always kooky, and no one's fears amount to fact...

It's not unusual for some people to have to drive 60 miles to work, one way. Maybe that's the only job they could find because our economy is horrible, maybe they have to live there because of their spouse, maybe they can't afford to live closer to work, etc. From: http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/miscellaneous/americans-are-leaving-earlier-commuting-longer/
the number of people with an hour or longer commute grew over 50% from 1990 to 2000.
Because a ton of people have trucks/SUVs, and most of those vehicles get relatively the same MPG, let's just go with 18mpg. 120 miles per day divided by 18 mpg times 3.90 (what gas is here) = $26 per DAY in fuel costs, just to get to work and back.
Median household income in the US is about $48,201. Divide that by 2 (2 working parents), then divide it by 2080, the number of hours worked per year (40 * 52), which means these people are making approximately $11.58 an hour, or $92.64 per day. However, once you subtract gas costs of JUST going to work, we're already looking at a net profit of $66.64. Federal income taxes on that household income are probably what....25%? So we're looking at people being left with $36,151 after federal taxes (if the rate is that low), minus $6,760 ($26 per working day X 5 days per week X 52 weeks), or $29,391. That's only $29,391 left over for state and local taxes, insurance, other gas needed to get places other than work, food (which is also going up because of gas), and other things. Since American incomes aren't rising, if more gas isn't drilled and it does hit $6 or $7 a gallon like most people predict it eventually will, which of course will make food prices go up even more, can you see what kind of problem we're going to be in? There's going to be a point where people can't afford to go to work anymore, and ergo won't be able to afford to eat with no money, or will continue working just to cover bills, but again will have food problems.

All that in consideration....I think me being able to eat is a hell of a lot more important than letting some polar bears stomp around. Sitting there starving thinking, "at least the caribou are happy!" is not going to make that situation any better.
 
  • #40
The US is flushing itself down the toilet because we won't stop building in an incredibly wasteful way that requires huge energy consumption before an employee even arrives at work. We also wash way too much soil and too many nutrients out to sea to produce our food and waste an awful lot of water too. We're a far greater threat to ourselves than 1,000 Osama bin Ladens could ever dream to be.

Whether we want to or not, we have to change. We can either do it while having some control over the process or we can wait until after we crash and burn. It basically is a question of how much we take down with us. I'd be happier knowing that polar bear, caribou and, yes, Sarracenias, survive and thrive. Even if Texans who are all hat and no cattle have to climb out of their trucks, put their boots on the ground and walk.
 
Back
Top