It's official: Ron Paul doesn't know what he's talking about

[medicinal]

Gigli, you certainly take a lot of space to prove a point. I guess being right is very important to you. All I have to say about all of this is: What the hell are we doing in Iraq? Also What the hell do we hope to accomplish in either Iraq or Afganistan? Maybe you've never heard of common sense, like spending a trillion dollars on wars so the oil companies can control the oil in Iraq and the Unocal Pipeline in Afganistan might not be in the interest of American taxpayers. Or that spilling American blood for Iraqi oil might not be in the best interest of those fallen soldiers or their mothers. Controlling Iraq is only in the interest of the elites and the corporations. Tell me what benefits there are to the average Americans. You can quote all of history about Iraq and Afganistan and never convince me that the USA is there to help the people of those countries. They are there for financial gain at the expence of the American taxpayer. It would be cheaper just to give the money to the war contractors and the oil companies and bring the troops home, but you see,. there are those little oil contract thingys ~LOL~ yeah we're certainly there to help joe public, ~LOL~.

[Gigliozzi]

Okay folks, what's up with this new "Gigli" trend? I am not a shitty 2003 movie starring Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez!

Diminuitives are badass, but I do wish you could come up with more tasteful a way of mutilating my screen name.

I mean, come on! "Gigli?" Brooke, I'm holding you personally accountable for having started this. Under any other circumstances, I would be quick to inform you, that this means war! :rambo: But I did appreciate your praise, so I suppose I can let this one incident slide. :thumbsup:

You don't mind if I call you Brooke, do you? There, how's it feel now that the shoe is on the other foot? (Nothing like a good cliche, I always say.)

Medicinal, I'm glad to see you forgave me and that we're just as tight as before. I agree, that was a real scroll I pumped out back there. But I felt it was appropriate, given in what urgent need of drastic and thorough correction the Dixon piece was.

You're damn right that being right is very important to me, what, it isn't to you? Do you ever think to yourself, "Hmm, I think I'll settle for being right about two thirds of the time, and being in a shoddy, unclear kind of right at that." Especially when it comes to politics, and especially when it comes to issues of such current relevance, such as the deplorable ineptness of a presidential candidate who seems to be attracting supporters exponentially, it is ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY to me that I know my shit, and all of it. How are you going to hold this against me, or try to belittle me for it?

Your subsequent rant on petroleum interests pulling Iraqi strings is very much off topic, I think. We are talking about the CIA and bin Laden in the 1980s, how did you manage to bring the Iraq War into it? I understand you are very passionate about the issue, but this isn't a thread where I was looking to have that discussion.

So which is the thread to discuss it? Your post actually gave me an idea. I'm planning on writing a thread where I challenge your post's position. I'm hoping to have it up by tomorrow, or at the latest the day after. :dance: Hopefully no one will beat me to it before then.

I invite you to keep an eye out for it. I seriously would like your counter-post and nobody else's to be the very first one on it. :thumbsup: We can have ourselves a good ol' slugfest about it.

[medicinal]

Okay folks, what's up with this new "Gigli" trend? I am not a shitty 2003 movie starring Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez!

Diminuitives are badass, but I do wish you could come up with more tasteful a way of mutilating my screen name.

I mean, come on! "Gigli?" Brooke, I'm holding you personally accountable for having started this. Under any other circumstances, I would be quick to inform you, that this means war! :rambo: But I did appreciate your praise, so I suppose I can let this one incident slide. :thumbsup:

You don't mind if I call you Brooke, do you? There, how's it feel now that the shoe is on the other foot? (Nothing like a good cliche, I always say.)

Medicinal, I'm glad to see you forgave me and that we're just as tight as before. I agree, that was a real scroll I pumped out back there. But I felt it was appropriate, given in what urgent need of drastic and thorough correction the Dixon piece was.

You're damn right that being right is very important to me, what, it isn't to you? Do you ever think to yourself, "Hmm, I think I'll settle for being right about two thirds of the time, and being in a shoddy, unclear kind of right at that." Especially when it comes to politics, and especially when it comes to issues of such current relevance, such as the deplorable ineptness of a presidential candidate who seems to be attracting supporters exponentially, it is ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY to me that I know my shit, and all of it. How are you going to hold this against me, or try to belittle me for it?

Your subsequent rant on petroleum interests pulling Iraqi strings is very much off topic, I think. We are talking about the CIA and bin Laden in the 1980s, how did you manage to bring the Iraq War into it? I understand you are very passionate about the issue, but this isn't a thread where I was looking to have that discussion.

So which is the thread to discuss it? Your post actually gave me an idea. I'm planning on writing a thread where I challenge your post's position. I'm hoping to have it up by tomorrow, or at the latest the day after. :dance: Hopefully no one will beat me to it before then.

I invite you to keep an eye out for it. I seriously would like your counter-post and nobody else's to be the very first one on it. :thumbsup: We can have ourselves a good ol' slugfest about it.

well, la-te da!

[andruejaysin]

That the CIA supported islamic fanatics fighting the russians in afganistan is hardly in debate. Whether or not bin laden dealt with them directly or only through the ISI is beside the point. Light enough enough matches in a room full of dynamite... Interesting that the head of ISI was meeting with the head of the CIA on sept 11th. Why? Likely so he could assure the US his country had nothing to do with it. Perhaps it was simply a coincidence, like the fact bin laden is alive and well in pakistan as we speak. None of this means ron paul isn't a lunatic, BTW.

[PharmaCan]

How can anyone support the policies of GWB - truly one of the world's biggest idiots - and then criticize the intelligence of someone else? It defies logic.

BTW - for all you boys and girls trying to fill in the blanks - Sadaam Husien's big "crime", in the eyes of GWB, was pumping Iraqi oil. No more, no less.

While it is painfully obvious that the Iraq invasion was based on misinformation purposely fabricated by GWB et al, one has to wonder why GWB had such a hard-on for Sadaam. The fact is that Sadaam was upsetting an 80-year-old conspiracy to keep Iraqi oil in the ground, thereby keeping crude prices high.

The neo-cons here can call me an ass-clown and try to protect their venerable traitor-in-chief, but the truth is beyond their childish tactics. The agreement to keep Iraqi oil in the ground is documented historical fact and, if someone wants to claim that the historical facts are fabricated, one need only look at Iraqi oil production - i.e. lack therof - over the years. The hypothesis will prove itself.

[Psycho4Bud]

The neo-cons here can call me an ass-clown and try to protect their venerable traitor-in-chief, but the truth is beyond their childish tactics. The agreement to keep Iraqi oil in the ground is documented historical fact and, if someone wants to claim that the historical facts are fabricated, one need only look at Iraqi oil production - i.e. lack therof - over the years. The hypothesis will prove itself.

First off PharmaCan you won't find that in here.......the days of the flame wars are done. Attack a party, political leader, etc... but attacks on members don't fly. We can have intelligent debate without that.

I'd like to see ya elaborate on this theory though.........I know that out of the 80 rigs there that 65 had to be capped after the invasion due to being in such poor shape. Likewise, there are contracts with firms from Canada and Norway doiing exploration not to mention the ones in negotiation with China, the U.S. and if I recall correctly Japan. In fact, the largest natural gas reserve was recently discovered there. If I recall it stretches from Kirkuk all the way down to the Saudi Border.

During the Saddam years you'll find that the two countries more/less in charge of exploration and active rigs were France and Russia.

Have a good one!:s4:

[PharmaCan]

First off PharmaCan you won't find that in here.......the days of the flame wars are done. Attack a party, political leader, etc... but attacks on members don't fly. We can have intelligent debate without that.

I'd like to see ya elaborate on this theory though.........I know that out of the 80 rigs there that 65 had to be capped after the invasion due to being in such poor shape. Likewise, there are contracts with firms from Canada and Norway doiing exploration not to mention the ones in negotiation with China, the U.S. and if I recall correctly Japan. In fact, the largest natural gas reserve was recently discovered there. If I recall it stretches from Kirkuk all the way down to the Saudi Border.

During the Saddam years you'll find that the two countries more/less in charge of exploration and active rigs were France and Russia.

Have a good one!:s4:

I didn't consider my comments a flame on any one member but rather a flame on a way of thinking - perhaps the difference is too subtle so I'll refrain from same. Or, now that I re-read this, maybe U R saying people won't flame me??? LOL Either way, I'll remain polite.

This is not theory, it's historical fact. Bottom line is, Iraq, with the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, is producing virtually no oil right now. As far as the wells that were capped, it only goes to prove my point. The wells were capped because of US led embargo on Iraq, not because Sadaam wanted them capped.

Google "royal dutch shell mr. 5%" and follow the trail.

[Psycho4Bud]

I didn't consider my comments a flame on any one member but rather a flame on a way of thinking - perhaps the difference is too subtle so I'll refrain from same. Or, now that I re-read this, maybe U R saying people won't flame me??? LOL Either way, I'll remain polite.

No, you did NOTHING wrong here. I was just pointing out that there was no need to worry or think that another member was going to flame up at you regarding your stance. It's all good! When things get a bit hot we encourage people to take a step back and really review their posts before submitting a reply.:thumbsup:

This is not theory, it's historical fact. Bottom line is, Iraq, with the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, is producing virtually no oil right now. As far as the wells that were capped, it only goes to prove my point. The wells were capped because of US led embargo on Iraq, not because Sadaam wanted them capped.

Google "royal dutch shell mr. 5%" and follow the trail.

Right now their oil production is at about 2.5 million barrels per day and thats considering that they are only using 15 of the 80 rigs. Their present governments expectations are that they will be able to increase this to over 6 million barrels per day within a 5 year period if I recall correctly. As for the 65 that were capped it sounded like they were in such bad shape that they were actually an accident waiting to happen.

Have a good one!:s4:

[PharmaCan]

it is painfully obvious that GWB and the neo-cons manufactured the excuses for invading Iraq from whole-cloth. Do you think it is any coincidence that oil prices and oil company profits are at record highs, thanks to GWB and the neo-cons? And who is benefiting from the record high oil prices? The entire world or the elites?

Neo-cons like to ask "Don't you agree that the world is a better place without Sadaam Hussien?" as if the answer to that question is an automatic "yes" and therefor the end justifies the means. Well, I've got news for you. An analysis of factual data would indicate that the answer to that question is, in fact "No, the world is not a better place without Sadaam.' It's pretty obvious that Arab peoples in the Middle East absolutely NEED to be ruled by potentates or dictators. They are too uncivilized to rule themselves. A sad, yet, for the most part, undisputable fact.

Are fewer people dying in Iraq today than were dying under Sadaam?

Is the average Iraqi better off today than s/he was under Sadaam?

Is the world a better place with the entire Middle East on the brink of all out war?

Would Iran be rattling the nuclear sabre if Sadaam were still in power?

And, just as a side issue, why is it that we expect the oil wealth of the Middle East to be shared with the people of the Middle East, yet we think it is perfectly alright for America's oil resources to be owned and exploited by the elite few?

And please, don't answer because of capitalism. Capitalism is economic philosophy designed to enrich the elites. It has nothing to do with freedom or democracy. Sure it's a great sytem, but even great systems need measures to prevent abuse.

[medicinal]

it is painfully obvious that GWB and the neo-cons manufactured the excuses for invading Iraq from whole-cloth. Do you think it is any coincidence that oil prices and oil company profits are at record highs, thanks to GWB and the neo-cons? And who is benefiting from the record high oil prices? The entire world or the elites?

Neo-cons like to ask "Don't you agree that the world is a better place without Sadaam Hussien?" as if the answer to that question is an automatic "yes" and therefor the end justifies the means. Well, I've got news for you. An analysis of factual data would indicate that the answer to that question is, in fact "No, the world is not a better place without Sadaam.' It's pretty obvious that Arab peoples in the Middle East absolutely NEED to be ruled by potentates or dictators. They are too uncivilized to rule themselves. A sad, yet, for the most part, undisputable fact.

Are fewer people dying in Iraq today than were dying under Sadaam?

Is the average Iraqi better off today than s/he was under Sadaam?

Is the world a better place with the entire Middle East on the brink of all out war?

Would Iran be rattling the nuclear sabre if Sadaam were still in power?

And, just as a side issue, why is it that we expect the oil wealth of the Middle East to be shared with the people of the Middle East, yet we think it is perfectly alright for America's oil resources to be owned and exploited by the elite few?

And please, don't answer because of capitalism. Capitalism is economic philosophy designed to enrich the elites. It has nothing to do with freedom or democracy. Sure it's a great sytem, but even great systems need measures to prevent abuse.

Great post, pretty much sums up my opinion on the whole thing. I surely hope we don't go for Iran as I'm pretty sure thats the beginning of the end, the whole middle east will blow up and spread to china and Packistan and then Russia will get involved and the Israelis will have to use Nukes and..........................