What a load of crap Airhead.

Are those black helicopters still hovering over your house?

When did the aliens return you from their spaceship? ... Oh they haven't returned you yet? Sorry, my bad. I didn't realize that your body was still under control of alien invaders. I hope for your sake that they don't crave cheap hot dogs.

Airwolf84 wrote:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I never listen to NPR, Air America or even watch 60 Minutes.

You should be wary of Alex. He may be right on something occasionally(even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while), but you need to take it with a grain of salt. He is well known for blowing things WAY out of proportion and spews so many conspiricy theories that you and I must be involved in two or three. You need to take what he says (or rants) as just more information for you to evaluate the facts on something. My attitude is question everything. Everything people say is agenda driven and finding that agenda is critical to understanding their agenda. Bear in mind that even our Prophets have agendas so not all agendas are bad (in this case the spreading of the gospel and the salvation of souls). Also, keep in mind that people can have more than one agenda.

I have learned the facts my friend... been reading about and researching this stuff for a few years now, so you can save your hollow and ill-advised insults. I've never come out and accused Bush or his regime of carrying out 9/11, although, the evidence and proof of foreknowledge is overwhelming and so the deliberate ignorance of the warnings makes the Bush administration complicit in the attacks. I've maintained that whoever the perpetrators were had to have motive, the means, the knowledge and the sophistication to be able to execute the powerfully unconventional demolition of three buildings all on the same day. Who matches all of the criteria? The U.S. military-industrial complex. However, it could also be a much more powerful group that has a lot of wealth and power behind it. A real, independent investigation needs to happen, but we'll probably never see one.

Thanks for calling me friend. Although I disagree with nearly all yours and other's points I bear no ill will. I just think that our society is given so much misinformation that people like Obama and Clinton are able to get away with "murder". Reread this article and contemplate it some more. There is a much smaller agenda involved in this than in anything that Alex or CNN or MSNBC or any of those others may propose.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

As for why Bush went after Iraq... easy... it was a country that would provide the least resistance to a U.S. invasion over in the region and provided an opportunity to begin setting up permanent bases for a planned transformation of the middle east under U.S. control. Isn't it interesting how not one penny of Iraqi oil has gone towards paying for the 'war', now over $600 billion. You want an eye-opener kahuku... do some research on the Taliban coming to Washington in 2001 to discuss with our government the allowance of a natural gas pipeline through their region to the Caspain Sea... you'll see why Afghasnistan was invaded. Things are not as they seem my friend... open your eyes.

I have read up on the "gas pipeline" and it is a red herring. What are you getting at? That the Taliban who supported it and now don't support it and are now stopping it were the cause of us invading Afganistan? Of course it had nothing to do with Bin Laden and Al-Queda being protected and supported by the Taliban. Or the many terrorist training camps or the frequent meetings that the worlds terrorist leaders had there. Yep it was to stop? or start? the pipeline.

Also, why would Iraq be easier to conquer than Saudi Arabia. Remeber in '91 when we put our forces in S.A. to protect them from being invaded by Iraq! And wasn't it Iraq who had the fourth largest army in the world when we invaded in 2002? We could have sent the Provo police force to Saudi Arabia and taken the country in minutes! Now this is an exageration but we could have used far less troops, had much less inhabited areas to maintain (98% desert), and no military resistance to speak of as well as the home of Bin Laden and the birthplace of Al Queda. And over double the oil and natural gas that Iraq has. And WAY more coastline which is critical for shipping. Now explain again why he would choose to invade Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Common sense alone dictates that S.A. is by far a better target. And after taking over S.A. wouldn't it be easier to either push Sadaam or overthrow him? If these people are so smart then why would they take the far poorer choice?

imuakahuku wrote:

Airwolf84 wrote:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I never listen to NPR, Air America or even watch 60 Minutes.

You should be wary of Alex. He may be right on something occasionally(even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while), but you need to take it with a grain of salt. He is well known for blowing things WAY out of proportion and spews so many conspiricy theories that you and I must be involved in two or three. You need to take what he says (or rants) as just more information for you to evaluate the facts on something. My attitude is question everything. Everything people say is agenda driven and finding that agenda is critical to understanding their agenda. Bear in mind that even our Prophets have agendas so not all agendas are bad (in this case the spreading of the gospel and the salvation of souls). Also, keep in mind that people can have more than one agenda.

I have learned the facts my friend... been reading about and researching this stuff for a few years now, so you can save your hollow and ill-advised insults. I've never come out and accused Bush or his regime of carrying out 9/11, although, the evidence and proof of foreknowledge is overwhelming and so the deliberate ignorance of the warnings makes the Bush administration complicit in the attacks. I've maintained that whoever the perpetrators were had to have motive, the means, the knowledge and the sophistication to be able to execute the powerfully unconventional demolition of three buildings all on the same day. Who matches all of the criteria? The U.S. military-industrial complex. However, it could also be a much more powerful group that has a lot of wealth and power behind it. A real, independent investigation needs to happen, but we'll probably never see one.

Thanks for calling me friend. Although I disagree with nearly all yours and other's points I bear no ill will. I just think that our society is given so much misinformation that people like Obama and Clinton are able to get away with "murder". Reread this article and contemplate it some more. There is a much smaller agenda involved in this than in anything that Alex or CNN or MSNBC or any of those others may propose.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

As for why Bush went after Iraq... easy... it was a country that would provide the least resistance to a U.S. invasion over in the region and provided an opportunity to begin setting up permanent bases for a planned transformation of the middle east under U.S. control. Isn't it interesting how not one penny of Iraqi oil has gone towards paying for the 'war', now over $600 billion. You want an eye-opener kahuku... do some research on the Taliban coming to Washington in 2001 to discuss with our government the allowance of a natural gas pipeline through their region to the Caspain Sea... you'll see why Afghasnistan was invaded. Things are not as they seem my friend... open your eyes.

I have read up on the "gas pipeline" and it is a red herring. What are you getting at? That the Taliban who supported it and now don't support it and are now stopping it were the cause of us invading Afganistan? Of course it had nothing to do with Bin Laden and Al-Queda being protected and supported by the Taliban. Or the many terrorist training camps or the frequent meetings that the worlds terrorist leaders had there. Yep it was to stop? or start? the pipeline.

Also, why would Iraq be easier to conquer than Saudi Arabia. Remeber in '91 when we put our forces in S.A. to protect them from being invaded by Iraq! And wasn't it Iraq who had the fourth largest army in the world when we invaded in 2002? We could have sent the Provo police force to Saudi Arabia and taken the country in minutes! Now this is an exageration but we could have used far less troops, had much less inhabited areas to maintain (98% desert), and no military resistance to speak of as well as the home of Bin Laden and the birthplace of Al Queda. And over double the oil and natural gas that Iraq has. And WAY more coastline which is critical for shipping. Now explain again why he would choose to invade Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? Common sense alone dictates that S.A. is by far a better target. And after taking over S.A. wouldn't it be easier to either push Sadaam or overthrow him? If these people are so smart then why would they take the far poorer choice?

Imuakahuku,

You're making one bad assumption. You assume all people are logical. I was intrigued by this thead, and actually posted because it was a fairly civilized debate. It has now gone the way of most of Airwolf's threads. You can't argue with him, because he doesn't follow logic. When you respond to his point with irrefutable logic, than he just switches to something else. He doesn't want the truth, he wants his opinion. Logic has nothing at all to do with it. Just one example. When we follow the intelligence that is gathered, we are liars. (Didn't Airwolf just state that Hussein was trying to fool everyone he had WMD? He must have done a good job.) When we don't use the intelligence (from the same sources), we are "complicit in the attacks". You and I can't have it both ways, but apparently that's not a problem for someone. When he insists on illogical statements and won't listen to "the other side", the debate ends.

imuakahuku wrote:

And over double the oil and natural gas that Iraq has.

Not to pick sides in a fight that is going nowhere, but working in the oil and gas industry, I have to speak out on this one. When the original agreements between Saudi Arabia and SOCAL expired in the early 80's, the Saudi super-giant fields were in decline. After the Saudi's kicked out the American companies and everything was turned over to Saudi Aramco, the Saudi government immediately banned the release of any field specific data, and all information about their energy production has to first be approved by a number of Saudi governmental officials. There is no audit mechanism or 3rd party verification in place to corroborate the state of Saudi oil production....we only have the word of the Saudi government.

The Saudi government has a lot invested in their status as the world swing producer of oil. It is by virtue of this position that they are the default ringleaders of OPEC and are of such political importance to Western oil importers like the US. If it comes out that Saudi Arabia can no longer moderate disturbances in worldwide production, or even worse that their production is dwindling, the Saudis would lose their grip on OPEC and their esteemed status among in Western politics.

It is a widely known fact that SOCAL, Exxon, and the other foreign companies grossly mismanaged Ghwar and the other Saudi oil fields in the years leading up to their departure. They were looking to get all the money they could out of the ground regardless of long-term consequences, because they weren't going to be there for the long term. As a result, there were premature water break thrus and gas cap formations in the best fields, and production was in decline as pressures dropped. When you have premature watercuts and gas cap formations in a resevoir and those accompanying pressure drops, oil gets left behind that can never be recovered, even with the most modern advances in oil field technology. When the American companies left Saudi Arabia, the fields were already in decline.

Since that time, Saudi Arabia has officially increased their "proven obtainable reserves" by over 150%, despite the fact that there has not been a new discovery of any size in Saudi Arabia since 1985. This is of note, since the reservoir deterioration caused by the mismanagement of the American companies should have resulted in a DECREASE in proven reserves.

The true status of Saudi oil is a state secret, but we know that reservoirs decline over time, the reservoirs they have are irreparably damaged, they have discovered no significant new fields, and that they have a lot to lose if the world thinks their oil is running out.

In short, actual obtainable reserves in the Kingdom are likely less than half of what the Saudi government claims. In doing their own inside market forecasts, Merrill Lynch and Exxon use the last verified estimate from 1983, and discount that number by 3 million barrels a day. Even that number might be generous as Saudi Arabia was at the time producing 5 million barrels a day, and now claims to produce 9. They do give some allowance for technological advances to produce more oil, which might explain the disconnect. Instead of the 264 billion barrels of producible oil that Saudi Arabia claims, the two heaviest hitters in the business privately put that number around 110 billion barrels of oil, which is 5 billion barrels of oil less than Iraq.

It is also worth mentioning that the fields in Iraq are far less developed, so they have not been damaged in the same manner as those in Saudi Arabia, so from this day to the end of oil, Iraq will likely produce far more oil than Saudi Arabia.

Again, not picking sides, but I do think it is important that people understand just how tenuous the world energy situation really is.

Pardon my sideways thinking here:

As someone that typically sides with the GOP (in this case I am pretty neutral and in some ways am embarassed by my party ); I have to say that the reason that Snos gives is ultimately one of the best arguments for the U.S. being in Iraq (dont' confuse that with a good argument to start a war/ completely different issue). Unfortunately, that alone will never be a good enough reason to unilaterally enter into a war....and we know that the WMDs excuse was borderline at best and one of the top 200 travesties in world history at worst.
So the next question is, if the U.S. and Iraq (and conceivably most of the democratic world; since their economies feed off of ours) stand to benefit from stability in Iraq and the middle east and 1. accessibility to Iraqi oil under conceivably a democratic and semi-capitalist government (competition is almost always a good thing, except for the monopolies) 2. potential for untapped or increased oil reserve; wouldn't we also be saying that Saudi Arabia stands to lose here? Could that potentially be dangerous?

And whether or not the Saudis are happy or not about this; isn't this possibly the next (I'm assuming most still think the best reason is avoiding giving birth to new terrorists and increased instability in the middle east)best reason we have (even if it selfish and somewhat misleading) to stay in Iraq?

And having said all that, if we're discussing this on a sports chat board, don't you think that our country's leadership knew about this light years ago? Was entering Iraq even more about oil than many of us thought? Did GW use 9/11 and his fathers legacy and hatred for all things Saddam to get our grips on "non-Saudi, uncontaminated oil stats" oil access? Or rather was GW used by others to attain this.....(seems more likely considering his "black or white" moral compass could have easily been turned by those smarter than him post 9/11)

By no means do I think we had the right to enter Iraq unilaterally (it was a terrible idea gone even worse by pathetic management (aka Rumsfield))
BUT (and this is a big BUT) based on what Snos just posted, it seems that there are several HUGE incentives to not leave until things are sorted out in Iraq; and that terrorism is just one of those issues.

The rhetorical question then would be aside from oil, why isn't this country in more of a panic to find alternative fuel sources?
answer: (involves $$, it's really the only thing that inspires serious R+D in this country)

craigoscarson wrote:

Pardon my sideways thinking here:

As someone that typically sides with the GOP (in this case I am pretty neutral and in some ways am embarassed by my party ); I have to say that the reason that Snos gives is ultimately one of the best arguments for the U.S. being in Iraq (dont' confuse that with a good argument to start a war/ completely different issue). Unfortunately, that alone will never be a good enough reason to unilaterally enter into a war....and we know that the WMDs excuse was borderline at best and one of the top 200 travesties in world history at worst.
So the next question is, if the U.S. and Iraq (and conceivably most of the democratic world; since their economies feed off of ours) stand to benefit from stability in Iraq and the middle east and 1. accessibility to Iraqi oil under conceivably a democratic and semi-capitalist government (competition is almost always a good thing, except for the monopolies) 2. potential for untapped or increased oil reserve; wouldn't we also be saying that Saudi Arabia stands to lose here? Could that potentially be dangerous?

And whether or not the Saudis are happy or not about this; isn't this possibly the next (I'm assuming most still think the best reason is avoiding giving birth to new terrorists and increased instability in the middle east)best reason we have (even if it selfish and somewhat misleading) to stay in Iraq?

And having said all that, if we're discussing this on a sports chat board, don't you think that our country's leadership knew about this light years ago? Was entering Iraq even more about oil than many of us thought? Did GW use 9/11 and his fathers legacy and hatred for all things Saddam to get our grips on "non-Saudi, uncontaminated oil stats" oil access? Or rather was GW used by others to attain this.....(seems more likely considering his "black or white" moral compass could have easily been turned by those smarter than him post 9/11)

By no means do I think we had the right to enter Iraq unilaterally (it was a terrible idea gone even worse by pathetic management (aka Rumsfield))
BUT (and this is a big BUT) based on what Snos just posted, it seems that there are several HUGE incentives to not leave until things are sorted out in Iraq; and that terrorism is just one of those issues.

The rhetorical question then would be aside from oil, why isn't this country in more of a panic to find alternative fuel sources?
answer: (involves $$, it's really the only thing that inspires serious R+D in this country)

I will make a comment on the WMD, and leave it at that.

Saddam DID have WMDs and he did have production capabilities. Saddam not only used these on the Kurds in the north, but also during the 8-year Iran/Iraq war. That is a known fact.

From the time of the 1st Gulf War, and subsequent cease-fire, to the fall of Saddam's regime, he had been working hard to keep the UN inspectors at bay. EVERYONE (and I mean EVERYONE - i.e. UN, MANY countries' leaders, Bush AND our congress) knew the above stated facts and believed he was furthering his research into the nuclear arena. The intelligence reports were there for everyone. Everyone knew Saddam was a serious threat - look at everyone's talking points in 2002.

As for the actual WMD, they existed. While in Iraq, our unit supported the Iraq Survey Group in doing "site surveys". The actual "canisters" were never found in great quantities, but the research facilities were there, including centrifuges, etc.

One of three things happened to these WMD: 1) They were destroyed. (And if they were, Saddam didn't document the destruction, according to the UN-dictated terms), 2) they were buried - (Over the years, several small caches have already been found), and/or 3) they were shipped to Syria. One of Saddam's top generals has written a book on this (he is in the West now) who eye-witnessed these truck convoys of shipments.

NOW, REGARDLESS of why or how we are in Iraq and the status of the WMD (I personally do not see the oil-connection: where is it???), the real question is how do we get out, is it not? Just picking up now and doing a mass exodus is NOT the answer. At the same time, just staying there for a 100 years AND DOING NOTHING ABOUT THE TERRORIST THREAT (either actual or aiding/harboring/supporting) is not the answer either.

General Petraeus' surge plan IS working. We need to listen to him (because he listens to his commanders on the ground). A war needs input from the gound-up, NOT a political-driven, non-military, top-down decision. Let the guys on the ground figure it out - they can and they will. They were sent there to do a job; let them finish it.

With a stable, secure environment in place (it is getting there already - be PATIENT!), THEN, we can move towards political reform. The Iraqi army is practically in place. Now we just need to have Iraq self-govern themselves, factoring in all 3 sects.

I know I make this sound easy on paper - there is a LOT of work to do - but patience is needed to make Iraq come out of this successfully. Anything short of that is a travesty to them and a threat to us.