8 of 10
8
Why we invaded Iraq
Posted: 08 July 2013 09:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Bryan - 08 July 2013 11:02 AM
Scott Mayers - 08 July 2013 10:47 AM
Bryan - 08 July 2013 12:25 AM
Scott Mayers - 07 July 2013 11:15 PM

Bryan,

Oil use by the U.S. cannot be a measure for whether an advantage by particular interests within the U.S. contemporary government made them successful or not. If you control the oil, you are still going to profit from it regardless of where it is sold.

So how does the U.S. control Iraqi oil?  Do we have a hidden bunker where specially trained CIA agents control the oil mentally from afar?

Good question. I was pointing this out because you [*] asked earlier where the evidence of overt gain was to be demonstrated within the U.S. economy. I am saying that it doesn’t have to present itself so obviously.

I don’t think I’ll be able to detect your answer to the question even after you fix your grammar.  Please rephrase, making clarity your goal.  Right now it looks like you’re saying that since you’re claiming that a country doesn’t have to end up with oil in its own market to control the oil that therefore the U.S. obviously controls Iraqi oil.  But don’t we require some sort of control structure of some kind (that’s what I’m asking about)?  If not, then how do we know that the Portuguese or the Irish aren’t the ones controlling the oil?


This doesn’t logically follow from what I said. You also could have easily figured the meaning of the statement in context without undue hardship (the * above is me taking out the extraneous word as I was about to say it differently and decided to change without recognizing my error.) The sentence is straight forward. Perhaps you have a different cultural background that leads you to interpret things the way you expect to hear them locally. Or, you’re just being an ass?
Either way, no, the ‘therefore’ and what follows in your sentence doesn’t follow my reasoning nor the way I presented it. I was particular not to present anything that posits anything I do not know (like whether oil was in fact a number one reason for war or not) throughout this debate. It is you who asserted a positive denial that oil was an irrelevant issue. The burden is on you to prove this rationale. My basis in argument has only attempted to show how (a), you’re not supporting your case with positive evidence, (b) it is a viable possibility that oil could possibly be a real issue considering that you are bullying VYAZMA and myself that such a thought is so trivially silly: It is not possible for an angel like the U.S. under Bush to actually be guilty of misconduct is your implied message.

First of all, the analogy is to demonstrate that if the interests of the United States government at the time did act covertly and for deceptive reasons, they are not stupid enough to be obvious about it. Your denial of possible American deception is worse than your assumption that Iraq had WDMs because nobody denied that Iraq was capable [possible] of deception.

I’m open to possible American deception.  But I judge deception based on the evidence presented. If you don’t have evidence of deception then I’m not going to accept a conclusion that is based on the assertion of American deception.  That’s the road to the reasoning of a conspiracy theorist.

So what’s your evidence?  So far we’ve got you dismissing the Duelfer Report based on who wrote it (ad hom circ/genetic fallacy) rather than its content.  Should I have confidence you’ll use rational methods to reach your conclusions?

Cool. Let it be understood loud and clear that you accept that Bush, his administration, or other American influences have just as much capability to be deceptive as the rest of us. This means it is possible for them to have gone to war on illegitimate grounds considering they not only claimed other reasons for war, but denied that they were going in for oil.

1) I presented the assumption that the U.S. did not go to war for oil and then asked you pointed references to North Korea, Rwanda, and Somalia as being more of a concern humanitarian-wise and threat-wise for which you only responded to Nigeria, a country that I don’t think fits these others to this extreme. Please address this. Also, why does the United States not stand against Israel for their humanitarian bullying of the Palestinians and recognize that for them being such a tiny country, they have an extremely imbalanced power of military might equal to that of the U.S. or China?

2) Why did the U.S. Bush administration, et al. communicate in ways that were so obviously deceptive to audiences everywhere?
  (a) Ignore responding directly to questions that were pointed and refused platform for skepticism.
  (b) Used repetition of words and statements that they didn’t qualify with explanation; They were emotionally charged words that used clear advertising and propaganda techniques aimed at associating hatred of 9/11, the victims, Al Qaeda, and Osama Bin Laden to Iraq, non-stop and unapologetically. Most of these politicians are very well versed in rhetoric, logic, and sufficient experience to know that what they said to the public media would not pass an opposite critical analysis amongst each other. So they were purposely being deceptive.
    (c), Any counter argument or presentation of their claims that were proven false by external sources only met with convenient finger-pointing to some other non-accountable source. And they only admitted faults when they were proven false externally. They used Bush’s down-to-earth drinkin’ buddy personality to appear clumsy and daft to sell the idea that the government is ‘stupider’ than the public. The purposely plied the Jackass appeal of the public to present an appearance of plausibility to justify any mistakes they could make.
3)The Republican ideology aims toward less government with the emphasis on delimiting business and removing social structures. Their claim is to reduce taxes but this rhetoric is merely its selling feature. The function is to transfer the power of the people to the aristocratic interests of particular businesses and the churches that foster dependency to them as well as maintain authoritarian rule (laws based on moral rules dictated by religious authors). They are thus experts at manipulation. So how could they actually be so truly stupid by how they appear to behave? Why would they pick a clumsy appearing George Bush to represent them? It’s mockery and a joke to those of us who understand their motives. It suggests that they will go to any means to an end. How do you respond to this seriously, without ridicule or distraction? Just going to slough it off too?

4)There are various documentaries that show how the Bush administration and company used their power to hand off absolutely ridiculously expensive contracts to their friends and associates for war contracts given to private authority, away from public accountability. How do you justify this as evidence for actual deceptive practices by nearly every government official? [see War Profiteering]

5)Oil controls: Prior to Iraq’s invasion, external oil contracts were not allowed to maintain their sovereignty over their resources. Now, it is open to external powers to provide the contracting to their resources. With their oil infrastructure destroyed throughout the war, the Iraqi’s are now dependent upon utilizing these large multinational contractors. They will only be guaranteed to get a royalty of their raw resources, now, as these other companies profits above and beyond the initial resource costs are now theirs. This virtually takes the control away from the Iraqi population.
Iraq Petroleum Company
Iraq National Oil Company
Oil in Iraq- Global Policy Forum
The Iraqi war is largely about Oil
Is this sufficient evidence for you to work with?

[ Edited: 08 July 2013 10:40 PM by Scott Mayers ]
 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2013 10:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Bryan - 08 July 2013 12:15 PM
VYAZMA - 08 July 2013 11:59 AM

*Bryan you have conceded that the US discussed how the Iraqis would use their oil revenues after we physically invaded Iraq itself. The Wolfowitz comments.
Regardless of what you presume his statements to mean, it is a direct link to war and oil.

And as I have noted, apparently any link between war and oil is supposed to support your claim that Bush invaded Iraq for oil. 

Support your empty counterclaim that it wasn’t for oil. Show how perhaps the U.S. went to war for your security claim. You are clearly playing a game to ploy vyazma in different directions. It’s like your brushing teeth: the intent isn’t to get rid of the bacteria, it is to disrupt their reproductive capacity momentarily; You’re trying to obscure the facts and attack rather than present a good positive argument yourself.

How was Saddam Hussein a threat to ‘security’? Who’s security? And why?
Did the justification to go to war to stop Saddam based on his supposed Al Qaeda links to terrorism pan out?
If he was a world criminal, why was he not brought to an international court or, at least to American justice rather than handed over to his internal dissidents for crimes done in the eighties?
You don’t even propose the religious/political aspects to how Israel benefits as a viable alternative.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2013 11:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Scott Mayers - 08 July 2013 09:52 PM

Perhaps you have a different cultural background that leads you to interpret things the way you expect to hear them locally.

Around here we expect when a question is asked that the response will either answer the question or give a reason for not answering the question.  Apparently where you live that’s not how things are done.  So you replied to my question as to how control was exercised by replying that it’s not so obvious.  Thanks for that.  Very informative.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2013 11:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Bryan - 08 July 2013 11:27 PM
Scott Mayers - 08 July 2013 09:52 PM

Perhaps you have a different cultural background that leads you to interpret things the way you expect to hear them locally.

Around here we expect when a question is asked that the response will either answer the question or give a reason for not answering the question.  Apparently where you live that’s not how things are done.  So you replied to my question as to how control was exercised by replying that it’s not so obvious.  Thanks for that.  Very informative.

Clearly, you’re just a fake. I won’t even waste time with you, anymore and hope that Vyazma sees the same thing. You’re a troll.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 12:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Scott, you are right, our government is controlling the oil. Have a friend who tried to buy a tanker of oil from Iraq. He had to do the banking through Dubai Central Bank in Dollars or Euros. The Dinar is not accepted yet and the Iraqi Central Bank is not to the point of handling oil contracts yet. Iraq wanted to expand its oil buyers and was giving a 10 point reduction for the first buy. Our government stopped the deal. Therefore I would say our government still has a lot of control.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 12:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 08 July 2013 01:49 PM
VYAZMA - 08 July 2013 01:33 PM

(It’s not a theory. My statement was: nations go to war for resources-not ideals.)

Have you looked at your thread title lately?

Thanks for the rest of your response.  The game is over, and I’ll explain why in about 10-12 hours or so.  Later.

[rolls eyes] LOL

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 01:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 112 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
Scott Mayers - 08 July 2013 11:36 PM
Bryan - 08 July 2013 11:27 PM
Scott Mayers - 08 July 2013 09:52 PM

Perhaps you have a different cultural background that leads you to interpret things the way you expect to hear them locally.

Around here we expect when a question is asked that the response will either answer the question or give a reason for not answering the question.  Apparently where you live that’s not how things are done.  So you replied to my question as to how control was exercised by replying that it’s not so obvious.  Thanks for that.  Very informative.

Clearly, you’re just a fake. I won’t even waste time with you, anymore and hope that Vyazma sees the same thing. You’re a troll.

I don’t think he is a fake Scott.  He’s not really a troll either. He has a long history here.  He comes and goes. Notice his post count(if you didn’t.)
He’s a garden variety right winger. His technique though is a form of argumentation which is designed to confuse, and circumvent the main issue.
He likes to take control of a debate, change the focal point, and then argue on his terms that he sets.
Debating him is only an exercise in patience.  Don’t get caught up in his whirlwind. Stick to your points. Then he fades away.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 01:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 113 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 08 July 2013 01:33 PM

Know what would be nice?  Tell us what would falsify your theory and summarize the affirmative evidence you have in support.

I could say the same to you. I doubt you would have a response though.

It’s pretty easy to repeat myself, actually.

Here’s my response.
What would falsify my reasons(It’s not a theory. My statement was: nations go to war for resources-not ideals.) would be this:
We didn’t have any existing oil interests in Iraq to begin with.  But we did.

Are you telling us about your claim regarding invading Iraq for oil, or your claim that nations go to war for resources?  What resources were we after in Afghanistan?  Kosovo?  Korea?  Would a lack of pre-existing oil interests in Iraq falsify your general statement about the reason nations go to war?  If you’re talking about invading Iraq for oil, who put those words in your mouth?  Me?

If the U.S. did not have pre-existing oil interests in Iraq but Iraq had exploitable oil reserves, would you change your mind about the lack of pre-existing oil interests falsifying your claim?  And what if Iraq had a history of attacking neighboring countries in which the U.S. had oil interests?

They actually found WMDs in Iraq, which was their main “excuse” for the invasion.  They found no WMDs!

So if they had found WMD then it wasn’t about oil at all (not even 75%) and your claim is falsified?  Who’s putting these words in your mouth?  Me?

After the war in Iraq we didn’t pursue any oil resources in Iraq.  But we did.

This one’s a puzzler.  American oil companies aren’t controlled by the U.S. government, are they?  Why would the decision of an American company to see profitable investments abroad serve as any kind of dependable indicator of U.S. intent in waging war?

The oil for food program wasn’t a military blockade by the US Military to compel Saddam Hussein to trade oil for food under duress-mainly the starvation of his population.  But it was!

It actually wasn’t a military blockade.  It was a multinational embargo.  It’s easy enough to forgive that inaccuracy and simply apply your claim to the embargo, of course.  The sanctions were not intended to force Hussein to trade oil.  They were intended to cripple the Iraqi economy and undercut Hussein’s ability to keep his army in good working order (were you aware that the Iraqi army at the time of the Gulf War was one of the largest armies in the world (#6 in terms of manpower).  It was the largest, per capita, at the time.  It required a great deal of upkeep).  The OFF program was supposed to help alleviate the suffering of the common Iraqi from the effects of the sanctions.  Nations had two options:  Give food to historically aggressive Iraq for free or trade it for oil, the only thing Iraq had to offer in trade.  So the OFF program, if we ignore its apparent purpose, works somewhat as a war for resources, oil in particular.  But the sanctions regime in place aside from that doesn’t.  One does not acquire resources by making it impossible to trade for the desired resource (but one can certainly pursue the principle of inhibiting another nation’s aggression that way).

The big problem here, of course, is that if you’re talking about the invasion of Iraq ordered by President George W. Bush (as you affirmed) then the OFF is effectively irrelevant.  Nothing about the OFF can rightly falsify your claim particular to the 2003 invasion.  Below, however, you’re back to claiming these factors would falsify your claim about wars being fought for resources (not principles).  Yet if nations had sent food to Iraq for free and kept other sanctions in place unless Hussein abdicated to a peaceful regime, wouldn’t you claim that the UN was trying to force out Hussein in order to ensure the safety of the world’s oil supply?  Wouldn’t you say your claim is 55% (or some such number) right instead of falsified?

These are some things that would falsify my statement that wars are fought for resources.
Note all the “resourcey” type things in there like food and oil.

Your falsification criteria are arbitrary, capricious and useless (except as self-serving instruments).  There are any number of ways to rationalize against the conclusion that any of your supposed falsification criteria would falsify your claim.  I’ve pointed out a few, and I’m sure you could do the same with the proper motivation.

Now here’s a key point regarding the reason for the 2003 invasion:  You say you’d accept that your claim is falsified if WMD were found in Iraq after the invasion.  But why?  Not finding WMD does not falsify the idea that the U.S. was motivated by Hussein’s possession of WMD.  All it potentially shows is that the belief was wrong.  To conclude that Bush wasn’t motivated by the desire to disarm Iraq, wouldn’t you need evidence that Bush did not truly believe Iraq possessed WMD?

This has been my problem with your entire argument.  It’s not well-developed (it’s ambiguous) and it’s not well-reasoned (you’re overlooking things that should not be overlooked).  I’d say it’s nowhere near as easy to separate resources from principle as you appear to claim.  You’re overlooking the fact that control of resources is itself a principle and the fact that if a war was fought purely for principle it would still be pragmatic to wage the war with careful consideration of the resources involved.  One can see this illustrated in a common video game like the old WarCraft.  People wage war in that game to defeat the enemy.  Because it’s a game.  The gold isn’t real.  The wood from chopping down virtual trees isn’t real.  You go after the resources in pursuit of the principle:  Defeat the enemy.

[ Edited: 09 July 2013 01:20 AM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 02:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 114 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Bryan-Are you telling us about your claim regarding invading Iraq for oil, or your claim that nations go to war for resources?

What’s the essential difference in those two statements. None that I can see.

What resources were we after in Afghanistan?

Intelligence. And territory.  Installing yet another puppet regime so that that territory would be no future threat to our resources. Territory and resources are almost the same thing. In the beginning of this thread I stipulated resources and/or territories as the reason for war. Look it up.  It’s back there.

Kosovo?

Stability for allied territorial interests. But close…close I will concede.  That one had good ideals behind it. I said some have better ideals behind them than others.
And after all what are ideals based on anyways?

Korea?

Spread of communism which was widely regarded as a threat to territorial/resource interests.

Would a lack of pre-existing oil interests in Iraq falsify your general statement about the reason nations go to war?  If you’re talking about invading Iraq for oil, who put those words in your mouth?  Me?

I don’t even understand this bit here. I’m not looking to falsify my statements. I’m looking to falsify your statements.
Again about 3-4 pages back I said that my statement about Invading Iraq for oil is true. That’s exactly what it means.
Are you going to make this whole argument now about argumentation policy. Or are you going to stay on topic.

If the U.S. did not have pre-existing oil interests in Iraq but Iraq had exploitable oil reserves, would you change your mind about the lack of pre-existing oil interests falsifying your claim?  And what if Iraq had a history of attacking neighboring countries in which the U.S. had oil interests?

First you explain the difference between “oil interests” and “exploitable oil reserves”.  It seems like the same thing to me. From my point of view.
Nobody exploits non-interests. 

So if they had found WMD then it wasn’t about oil at all (not even 75%) and your claim is falsified?  Who’s putting these words in your mouth?  Me?

Did they find WMDs in Iraq? But yes even if they did, it still would have been about oil. Because obviously he would have had those WMDs to protect his oil resources. As he saw fit to interpret “protect”.

This one’s a puzzler.  American oil companies aren’t controlled by the U.S. government, are they?  Why would the decision of an American company to see profitable investments abroad serve as any kind of dependable indicator of U.S. intent in waging war?

This ones a puzzler for you? Really?  It’s the other way around…oil companies exert considerable control over the US government!  It’s natural.
It goes along with my opening premise. Oil runs through our veins.  It’s only natural that oil companies would have a strong influence in governing our politics and economy.  This question of yours here really highlights your delusional concepts though.

It actually wasn’t a military blockade.

Yes it was. It was complete with no-fly zones and a Naval Fleet parked in the Persian Gulf. Along with all of your multi-national helpers.
You already agreed it was a blockade. Regretting that now aren’t you? wink Kind of F**ks up your whole argument! Talk about walking back. What a cheap scoundrel you are. I never walked back anything. You just didn’t read all my posts in this thread. You thought you could pounce on “we invaded Iraq for oil”. Ooops! Big mistake.
I deleted the rest of the post you typed. It was too long and too wonky.  And it was pure conjecture. Pure Conjecture.
God dang…do you have anything else besides conjecture and trying to argue points based on reverse and inverse falsifications?
Do you?

Your falsification criteria are arbitrary, capricious and useless (except as self-serving instruments).  There are any number of ways to rationalize against the conclusion that any of your supposed falsification criteria would falsify your claim.  I’ve pointed out a few, and I’m sure you could do the same with the proper motivation.

This is what I’m talking about..you are getting manic over these “falsifications”.

Now here’s a key point regarding the reason for the 2003 invasion:  You say you’d accept that your claim is falsified if WMD were found in Iraq after the invasion.  But why?  Not finding WMD does not falsify the idea that the U.S. was motivated by Hussein’s possession of WMD.  All it potentially shows is that the belief was wrong.  To conclude that Bush wasn’t motivated by the desire to disarm Iraq, wouldn’t you need evidence that Bush did not truly believe Iraq possessed WMD?

No, you obtuse person!  If the WMDs were there it would have bolstered their credibility while at the same time executing the actual goal-RESOURCES!
Man, I thought you were more knowledgeable. I really did. But your fumbling around trying to arrange fallacies and falsities and conjectures.
You really do believe it was about WMDs don’t you? Wow!

This has been my problem with your entire argument.  It’s not well-developed (it’s ambiguous) and it’s not well-reasoned (you’re overlooking things that should not be overlooked).  I’d say it’s nowhere near as easy to separate resources from principle as you appear to claim.  You’re overlooking the fact that control of resources is itself a principle and the fact that if a war was fought purely for principle it would still be pragmatic to wage the war with careful consideration of the resources involved.  One can see this illustrated in a common video game like the old WarCraft.  People wage war in that game to defeat the enemy.  Because it’s a game.  The gold isn’t real.  The wood from chopping down virtual trees isn’t real.  You go after the resources in pursuit of the principle:  Defeat the enemy.

LOL I feel cheapened now.  Why have I wasted pages and pages with you?  Scott was right!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 02:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 115 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21

This is what I’m talking about..you are getting manic over these “falsifications”.

Your responses show how you fail to argue systematically.  You offer examples of falsification criteria that you turn around and say would not falsify your statement.  And no, of course you don’t *want* to falsify your own statement.  But if that statement isn’t falsifiable in principle and for you personally as well then your argument is more likely of a kind with that of a conspiracy theorist.  It is madness to argue with a person who will not accept rational reasons for rejecting his own claims, and this exercise offers some strong indications that you treat this issue in that way.  Except where the argument is for the sake of third parties.

It’s not a mark of clear thinking to come come up with falsification criteria and then turn around not long after and decide that they wouldn’t falsify the claim after all.  And this difficulty with your idea limits its usefulness.  Ideas that explain everything end up explaining nothing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 11:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 116 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 09 July 2013 02:49 AM

This is what I’m talking about..you are getting manic over these “falsifications”.

Your responses show how you fail to argue systematically.  You offer examples of falsification criteria that you turn around and say would not falsify your statement.  And no, of course you don’t *want* to falsify your own statement.  But if that statement isn’t falsifiable in principle and for you personally as well then your argument is more likely of a kind with that of a conspiracy theorist.  It is madness to argue with a person who will not accept rational reasons for rejecting his own claims, and this exercise offers some strong indications that you treat this issue in that way.  Except where the argument is for the sake of third parties.

It’s not a mark of clear thinking to come come up with falsification criteria and then turn around not long after and decide that they wouldn’t falsify the claim after all.  And this difficulty with your idea limits its usefulness.  Ideas that explain everything end up explaining nothing.

Well that’s too damn bad.  First off, I can’t think of anything to falsify my claim.
Those examples I gave were sarcastic.  I honestly can’t think of anything that would falsify my claim.
My claim, which is that we invaded Iraq for oil is based on my larger premise that all wars are fought for territory and/or resources.
This really isn’t based on any conspiracy theory idea.  It’s based on history and logic.
It would have been better for you to have originally approached this argument from my larger standpoint-that being wars are fought for resources/territory and
then thought of a few counter examples….like Kosovo(which comes close to ideals as far as I know.  Don’t know too much about that conflict.)


But No.  You thought you were a badass, and jumped in in without looking. Attacking my larger premise here with weapons designed to counter Conspiracy Theories about Iraq being “Blood for Oil” or some such crap.  That’s the facts.  That’s why you constantly complained about me “walking back” and changing my argument etc etc….
As you well know, that was you trying to adjust to the argument, to my larger premise. Stumblin’ and fumblin’ around until you collapsed in on yourself and had to resort to all kinds of foolishness regarding falsifications and other such tawdry defenses.
You make laugh. 
Can you think of anything to falsify any of my claims. Go right ahead! Take a shot at it.  Remember, you’re arguing against my premise that the main reason we Invaded Iraq was to stabilize the region and the political situation in Iraq for ours and our allied oil interests. Have fun!
And by the way I have asked a hundred questions, all of which are still pending answers from you.

[ Edited: 09 July 2013 11:21 AM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 11:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 117 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
VYAZMA - 09 July 2013 01:03 AM
Scott Mayers - 08 July 2013 11:36 PM
Bryan - 08 July 2013 11:27 PM
Scott Mayers - 08 July 2013 09:52 PM

Perhaps you have a different cultural background that leads you to interpret things the way you expect to hear them locally.

Around here we expect when a question is asked that the response will either answer the question or give a reason for not answering the question.  Apparently where you live that’s not how things are done.  So you replied to my question as to how control was exercised by replying that it’s not so obvious.  Thanks for that.  Very informative.

Clearly, you’re just a fake. I won’t even waste time with you, anymore and hope that Vyazma sees the same thing. You’re a troll.

I don’t think he is a fake Scott.  He’s not really a troll either. He has a long history here.  He comes and goes. Notice his post count(if you didn’t.)
He’s a garden variety right winger. His technique though is a form of argumentation which is designed to confuse, and circumvent the main issue.
He likes to take control of a debate, change the focal point, and then argue on his terms that he sets.
Debating him is only an exercise in patience.  Don’t get caught up in his whirlwind. Stick to your points. Then he fades away.

I saw his posts. What I notice, however, in his arguments, is a pattern of appearing not to follow what is obviously clear at times. I, at first, gave charity, assuming that he just had come from a different background. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Notice how he feigns ignorance or insults grammar when the context is clear. I understand a troll as someone who leads a conversation on by disruption rather than content. While he obviously understands certain reasoning skills, he only uses them sporadically and prefers to derail with rhetoric.
I think you’ve made your case fair here. While I didn’t intentionally mean to stand for the idea that oil was the major contributor to Iraq, by arguing with Bryan I have at least been able to discover from more online resources that you have sincere validity. Thanks and good luck with Bryan here.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 12:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 118 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 09 July 2013 11:09 AM

I honestly can’t think of anything that would falsify my claim.

I suggest that you post to the philosophy forum a thread called “Whats’ the problem with unfalsifiable claims?” and let the people who agree with you explain what’s wrong.  I’ll stay out of it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 12:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 119 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

Here’s a small sampling of Bryan’s statements: Which support my argument:

Bryan-An Iraq friendly to the West can control its own oil.  We’d be fine with that. 

So an Iraq that controlled it’s own oil that wasn’t friendly to the West?

Bryan-It doesn’t matter who controls the oil (not much, anyway) in terms of the oil coming to market. We’re not controlling the oil in Iraq.  China’s positioning to do that.

If China gains control of the oil in Iraq Bryan, then does it matter who controls the oil in Iraq?  The worlds 2nd largest oil reserve!
I’m just wondering…then does it matter who controls the oil?

Bryan-Right, so if we attack nations in order to control oil then we should attack Canada.

No, Canada is an ally of ours.

Bryan-I’ve already stated that the U.S. had an interest in preserving market access to ME oil (including Iraq’s).

Bryan-There’s no need to “control” the oil, as one person put it.  The aim is to keep oil receipts from flowing into the pockets of entities that pose a security threat such as Saddam Hussein.

Was that part of the objective in the Iraq war? To keep oil receipts from flowing into Saddam’s pockets? Note the word “oil”!

Bryan-The sanctions were put in place as part of a ceasefire agreement.  So, yes, you can regard them as a type of war if you wish.

Perfect.  That’s all part of the war that ever ended. The one that started in Kuwait and ended in Bagdad 20 or so years later.
 

Bryan-That war never ended.  Military hostilities were paused by the ceasefire agreement.  It was a part of “war” that the Hussein government agreed to in order to keep control of Iraq at the tail end of the Gulf War.

Right I agreed with you right above here. The whole war from the early 90s was punctuated by the Kuwait incident, the Blockade, the oil for food program, the intelligence wars and UN inspectors, and the final physical invasion of Iraq and Bagdad, the execution of Saddam Hussein, the Occupation of parts of Iraq, and the attempted quelling of a civil war.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2013 01:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 120 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 09 July 2013 12:53 PM

Here’s a small sampling of Bryan’s statements: Which support my argument:

That’s the beauty of unfalsifiable claims:  Nothing can fail to support the argument.

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 10
8