About Us

Poco Loco

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 12:06:31 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 14:24:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/23/2014 2:18 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:04:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/21/2014 8:45 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 19:39:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/21/2014 10:50 AM, Boating All Out wrote:

So which of those statements do you find disagreeable?
Apparently you view ISIS as formidable Arab heroes.
I say they're simple trash.
But this is America, and you're free to express your opinion.
Trouble is, you've expressed nothing. Nothing at all.
Worthless.
So unless you can can get something together....

There are some credible people who think otherwise:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/21/376138/hagel-says-isil-threat-bigger-than-911/

I watched that press conference with Hagel and Dempsey today. They are
painting a pretty ugly picture. I felt like I have seen this show
before. They both agreed, air strikes alone are not going to make a
serious dent in ISIS. They also hinted that we would need to expand
the war into Syria. They are denying that there is even a border.
It was also interesting watching them dance around the question about
what we were going to do with Assad. He may be our most effective ally
against ISIS.
I suppose we will depose him too.

What did Powell say, you break it, you own it.

True but I seriously doubt everything would be peachy keen if Bush had
not invaded Iraq. It may have made Iraq fertile ground due to being
de-stabilized but ISIS or ISIL or whatever they want to be called was in
the cards anyway. This all pre-dates GWB with origins in Syria and
AL-Qeuda.

Saddam was broke and busted. Might not have been peachy keen but we'd
be 2 trillion dollars, 5000 americans, 50,000 injured and countless
Iraqis dead or displaced to the good.

Cheney wanted control of oil. Politics were in the way and war was
the answer.

We broke it, we bought it.

Oil again? Do you have anything that proves that invading Iraq
benefited the USA in terms of oil or controlling it's production?

Stop acting like a dim bulb. Oil prices were spiking, Bush admin was
freaking out about what it was going to mean for the US economy. The
best plan they could come up with was getting Iraq's oil production
back on line, which had been decimated because of sanctions.

As much as you don't like Rachel Maddow, you need to watch her
documentary on Why Iraq. Even the most cynical partisan would find it
hard to argue with her conclusions.

You're a joke.

Mr. Luddite

On 8/25/2014 3:20 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:12:34 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 12:06:31 -0700, jps wrote:

As much as you don't like Rachel Maddow, you need to watch her
documentary on Why Iraq. Even the most cynical partisan would find it
hard to argue with her conclusions.

You're a joke.

I have to think MadCow was just knee jerking if she thinks Bush's
invasion of Iraq was to increase oil production. That invasion caused
the first significant decrease in middle east oil in decades.
Far more of an impact than the sanctions.
Maybe she should have said it was intended to raise oil prices.

For jps's benefit, I *did* watch Rachel's special on "Why Iraq"? Twice.

It didn't and doesn't change my opinion. There is no evidence that the
US government benefited by securing oil supplies.

F*O*A*D

On 8/25/14 3:26 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/25/2014 3:20 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:12:34 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 12:06:31 -0700, jps wrote:

As much as you don't like Rachel Maddow, you need to watch her
documentary on Why Iraq. Even the most cynical partisan would find it
hard to argue with her conclusions.

You're a joke.

I have to think MadCow was just knee jerking if she thinks Bush's
invasion of Iraq was to increase oil production. That invasion caused
the first significant decrease in middle east oil in decades.
Far more of an impact than the sanctions.
Maybe she should have said it was intended to raise oil prices.

For jps's benefit, I *did* watch Rachel's special on "Why Iraq"? Twice.

It didn't and doesn't change my opinion. There is no evidence that the
US government benefited by securing oil supplies.

It was to get Saddam's WMDs...everyone knows that.

What it was, actually, was the dumbest move by a U.S. Administration
since we decided we could prop up by military force the corrupt
government of South Vietnam.

Harrold

On 8/25/2014 1:20 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:12:34 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 12:06:31 -0700, jps wrote:

As much as you don't like Rachel Maddow, you need to watch her
documentary on Why Iraq. Even the most cynical partisan would find it
hard to argue with her conclusions.

You're a joke.

I have to think MadCow was just knee jerking if she thinks Bush's
invasion of Iraq was to increase oil production. That invasion caused
the first significant decrease in middle east oil in decades.
Far more of an impact than the sanctions.
Maybe she should have said it was intended to raise oil prices.

JPS and Harry luv those gay talking heads. Birds of a feather, as they say.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What could possibly go wrong?	jps	General	193	August 28th 14 12:52 AM
Possibly NOT photoshopped...	F.O.A.D.	General	5	June 3rd 13 01:25 PM
What could possibly go wrong?	ESAD	General	16	January 23rd 13 01:52 PM
What could possibly go wrong	Oscar	General	0	May 3rd 12 10:32 PM
Can they possibly get stupider?	Frogwatch	General	11	December 31st 09 08:28 PM

Menu

About Us